United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, Local Union 193-G v. PPG Industries, Inc., 751 F.3d 580

Background

PPG sought in April–June 2009 to modify its collective bargaining agreement with United Steelworkers Local 193-G to reduce labor costs by $10/hour, proposing a two-tier wage system and other changes.
The contract required 30 days’ notice and that proposed changes be presented "not later than the first day of the conference." The bargaining conference began June 1, 2009 (the deadline).
PPG previewed its cost goals and the two-tier idea at a May 14 meeting and sent a May 28 e-mail with a cost chart showing the two-tier plan alone would still fall short of the $27/hour target and stating concessions from current employees likely were needed.
On June 1 PPG made non-economic proposals; on June 2–3 it submitted detailed economic proposals (specific wage and benefit cuts). The Union grieved that the June 2–3 proposals were untimely under the contract.
An arbitrator held PPG’s $10 labor-cost reduction goal and two-tier system were preserved/timely, approved non-economic June 1 proposals, and labeled June 2–3 proposals as "discretionary items for bargaining," but did not expressly distinguish between cuts to existing employees versus new hires or between wages and benefits.
After the arbitration award, PPG removed some post‑June 1 items but implemented a final offer including wage and benefit concessions; the Union sued to enforce the arbitrator’s award and rescind PPG’s unilateral implementation. The district court granted summary judgment to PPG; the Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the arbitrator’s award barred PPG from implementing wage cuts for existing (first-tier) employees	The arbitrator did not approve cuts to existing employees because PPG never proposed such cuts by June 1; therefore post‑June‑1 cuts are untimely and unenforceable	The record (May 14 meeting and May 28 e‑mail) put the Union on notice that cuts to existing employees were a possibility by June 1; arbitrator approved the cost‑reduction goal and two‑tier system	Court held the record supports that PPG preserved proposals covering existing‑employee concessions; affirming district court that award did not bar implementation of the final offer
Whether the arbitrator’s approval was limited to wages and did not permit benefit reductions	Union contends the arbitrator referenced a "wage" two‑tier system, so benefits cuts were not approved	PPG’s May 28 chart explicitly itemized benefits reductions in the two‑tier model; arbitrator’s language did not distinguish wages from benefits	Court held nothing in the award or record supports imposing the Union’s wages‑only limitation; benefit cuts were within the scope the arbitrator preserved
Whether the arbitrator’s award was ambiguous so courts must remand for clarification	Union argues ambiguity and asks court to prevent implementation rather than seek clarification	PPG argues award is clear when read with the arbitration record; courts should enforce awards as written without rewriting them	Court declined to remand; resolved apparent ambiguities by consulting the record and enforced the award as written
Whether a court may alter the arbitrator’s decision to favor the Union	Union effectively asks courts to add limiting language to the award	PPG argues courts cannot rewrite awards and must enforce them as written	Court reiterated the narrow scope of judicial review: cannot rewrite arbitrator’s award; affirmed district court judgment

Key Cases Cited

Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (2001) (courts must not overturn arbitrator’s factual or legal errors unless arbitrator strays from contract interpretation)
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Danly Machine Corp., 852 F.2d 1024 (7th Cir. 1988) (court may not elaborate on or rewrite an arbitrator’s award)
Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 500 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2007) (if award is ambiguous, remand to arbitrator is permissible but disfavored; court may consult record)
Tri-State Business Machines, Inc. v. Lanier Worldwide, Inc., 221 F.3d 1015 (7th Cir. 2000) (courts should, where possible, resolve ambiguities by examining arbitrator’s opinion and record rather than remanding)
Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Edman Controls, Inc., 712 F.3d 1021 (7th Cir. 2013) (reiterating limited judicial review of labor arbitration awards)
Brown v. Witco Corp., 340 F.3d 209 (5th Cir. 2003) (enforce arbitration awards only as written)