Brentwood Medical Associates v. United Mine Workers of America, 396 F.3d 237

Brentwood Medical Associates v. United Mine Workers of America

396 F.3d 237

3rd Cir.

2005

Check Treatment

Docket

*1 IV. PLA

The communications of the to the subject

Pipers requirements were to the Accordingly,

the FDCPA. the order of 31, 2003, July

the District Court entered

will be affirmed.

BRENTWOOD MEDICAL

ASSOCIATES

Appellant MINE

UNITED WORKERS

OF AMERICA.

No. 04-1955. Appeals,

United States Court of

Third Circuit.

Argued Dec. 2004.

Jan.

As Amended March Romea, gent, requirements practices.” set of that would consti- lection 163 F.3d at 118. tute minimum national standards for debt col- *2 Prozzi, (Argued), A. Jackson James PA, LLP, Pittsburgh, Appellant. Lewis for B. Healey, (Argued), Douglas Michael J. McKechnie, Hornack, P.C., Healey & PA, Pittsburgh, Appellee. AMBRO, Before and VAN ANTWERPEN, Judges and Circuit SHADUR,1 Judge. Senior District AMBRO, Judge, Dissenting. Circuit OPINION ANTWERPEN, Judge. VAN Circuit The Federal Arbitration Act codi Congress’ uphold private fies desire to ar agreements produce prompt bitration dispute and fair resolution without involv in ing the courts. furtherance this terest, scrupulously honor the a court must Illinois, Shadur, dеsignation. silting by I. Senior 1. Honorable Milton United Judge States District for the Northern District agreements in such bargains implicit explicitly prevented from only severely when an award is to, interfere “add[ing] from, subtracting] or modi- See, problematic. e.g., Shearson/Ameri fying] any way provisions, McMahon, Exp., can Inc. v. 482 U.S. terms Agreement.” [or] conditions of [the] *3 (1987). 223, 2332, 107 S.Ct. Id. to appeal This asks us determine whether grievance gave that rise to this up- or not an arbitration award should be appeal alleged that BMA violated the col- an inexplicably hеld where arbitrator cites bargaining agreement lective when it re- his decision cannot be fused to allow a union member to exercise bargaining found the relevant collective seniority rights her under Article agreement. we VIII. Because conclude that mistake, 2001, (a February, a glaring, such while does not Ms. Denise Cope mem- UMWA) fatally taint the balance of the arbitrator’s ber was position offered the case, decision this we affirm the decision Charge Entry Associate, for which she left upholding of the District Court the award. position her aas Phlebotomist. On No- 11, 2002, vember BMA announced it would Background I. Factual abolishing Charge Entry be Associate (“BMA”) Brentwood Medical Associates classification effective November and the United Mine Workers of America Cope Ms. requested permission to (“UMWA”) parties are to a collective bar- “bump”2 outside her classification of gaining agreement that covers the terms Charge Entry Associate and return to her employment and conditions of for a unit of position Phlebotomist, thereby as a dis- Brentwood, facility at BMA’s placing the least senior person Pennsylvania. agreement provides This refused, classification. This request was mandatory grievance and pro- arbitration and BMA Cope instead offered Ms. disputes cedure for the parties. between position of Front Office Clerk.3 grievances by Arbitration of is conducted 14, 2002, On Cope November Ms. filed an a panel, arbitrator chosen from and that grievance pursuant with BMA to the arbitrator’s decision “shall final and be bargaining agreement, claiming binding upon employees, the Union that BMA Employer.” and the Joint had violated Article Sec- Appendix (“J.A.”) 1, 2, 3, 2003, agreement, February 48. Under the an tions and 10.4 On by "Bumping" process employee's by is which an em- unit since the last date of hire ployee Employer ... who had less than another parties recognize prin- Section 2. The employee forced a more out so that senior cipal layoffs, as a factor in junior employee's position [sic] can take and avoid types promotional op- recalls and certain lаyoff Ostapowicz himself. See v. Johnson portunities provided Co., is other- (3d Cir.1976). Bronze shall, however, fully qualified. Seniority wise apply only expressly provided in this Cope 3. The found that Ms. had Agreement. greater seniority twenty-eight than of the thir- Layoff Section 10. In the Recalls. ty-five employees bargaining unit. J.A. Employer event that the determines to reduce at 71. the work force in classification covered classification, Agreement this or to abolish a reads, (Seniority) 4. Article VIII in relevant will, discretion, Employer in its sole deter- part: рositions mine which are to be affected and Seniority Section 1. shall be as the employee positions defined the number of to be re- duced, years, days employee including months and an has time the number of full Employer bargaining part positions worked with the time which will be affected in agreement. with the terms of the grievance. BMA and sistent

BMA this denied binding arbi- at 06-7. proceeded then J.A. ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍UMWA Article XIV of the col- pursuant tration Arbitrator

lective II. Jurisdiction and Standard to conduct was selected John M. Felice of Review arbitratiоn, August he and on timely Ap BMA filed a Notice of grievance sustaining issued a decision jurisdic peal April 2004. We have Cope Ms. permit BMA to ordering final order tion to review this district court seniority rights and exercise her pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We exer J.A. at 68- the least senior Phlebotomist. review over a district court’s plenary cise *4 asked In that resolving motions for sum decision cross rhetorically why, bumping per- if was not Teamsters Local 312 v. mary judgment. bargaining collective mitted under (3d Matlack, Inc., 985, 118 994 F.3d Cir contended, BMA was the agreement as Service, .1997),(quoting United Parcel Inc. governing bumping following language 430, Bhd. Teamsters Local No. v. Int’l VIII, in Article Section 10: present (3d Cir.1995)). 138, 140 55 F.3d “... who exercise skill, rights quali- must have the and bargaining agree A collective fications, ability physical and fitness to a contractual accord represents ment in that remaining all of the work perform an employer reached between and its em ...” classification If a contract an ployees. such includes clause, it is assumed that the arbitration This does not exist J.A. at 73-4. 10, parties bargained grievance for a resolu any- Section or either procedure tion which an arbitrator bargaining collective where else interpret agreement. would It is thus not the role of a court to correct factual or complaint BMA filed a with the United legal Major errors made an arbitrator. District Court for the Western Dis- States League v. Umpires Ass’n American pursuant Pennsylvania trict of Clubs, League Baseball 357 of Professional Management 301 of the Labor Relations (3d Cir.2004). 272, 279 A F.3d district amended, 1947, Act of 29 U.S.C. may only court determine whether or not seq., seeking et to vacate award. The an arbitrator’s award “draws its essence” parties summary filed cross-motions parties’ from the judgment, granted the District and Court agreement, Paperworkers United Int’l Un summary in favor of judgment UMWA ion, Misco, Inc., 29, v. AFL-CIO 484 U.S. 12, Adopting appropriate March 36, 364, (1987), 98 L.Ed.2d 286 review, S.Ct. deferential standard of the District apply and we this same standard in re parties Court concluded that had (1) viewing Pennsyl the arbitration award. agreed that an arbitration award would (2) final vania Power Co. v. Local Union No. 272 binding, be and and the arbitra- Workеrs, AFL-CIO, tor’s decision reached rational result con- the Int’l Bhd. Elec. department. remaining each classification The will assume the schedule. The and/or accomplished Employer reduction will be or- will the Union a list of em- inverse send affected, (24) ployees twenty-four der of in the classifications laid off within hours provided layoff. Employer exempt that the to be em- retained skill, qualifications, ability physi- ployees special have the and with skills or abilities from layoff. perform any cal all of fitness the work remain- rеduction in force or added). ing training, (emphasis in that classification without (3d Cir.2001). 174, Once a III. 276 F.3d Discussion court is satisfied that an arbitrator’s award There is a strong un presumption from a collective draws its essence bar- Act, der the Federal Arbitration 9 U.S.C. jurisdic- gaining agreement, it is without § 1 seq., et in favor of enforcing arbitration tion to consider award further. awards. H. Moses Cone Mem’l Hosp. v.

Mercury Corp., 24-25, Constr. 460 U.S. An award draws its essence from (1983). 103 S.Ct. As bargaining agreement a collective if its such, an presumed award is valid unless it interpretation any cаn in way rational be otherwise, affirmatively shown to be agreement, derived from the viewed validity subject of an award is to attack context, light language, of its its only grounds on those listed 9 U.S.C. other indicia of parties’ 10,5 intention. or if enforcement of the award is Transp. United Union Local 1589 v. Sub contrary public policy. Exxon Shipping Co., Corp., urban Transit 993 F.2d at (quoting 379-80 W.R. Grace (3d Cir.1995). rule, & Co. Local Union general “As we must Int’l Union of Workers, 757, ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍766, Rubber 461 U.S. enforce an arbitration award if it was *5 2177, (1983)). S.Ct. arguable based on an interpretation and/or applicаtion bargaining of the collective BMA contends that the arbitrator agreement, may only vacate it if there authority exceeded his when he added lan support is no in the record for its determi guage to the bargaining collective agree nation or if manifest disregard it reflects ment supporting his conclusion that Ms. agreement, totally by of the unsupported Cope could a less senior employee principles of contract construction.” Exx classification, a signals different which Shipping on Co. v. Exxon Sеamen’s Un 10(a)(4). violation of 9 U.S.C. If this (3d Cir.1993) (inter ion, 993 F.2d 360 alleged overstep by the arbitrator is the omitted). Therefore, quotation nal marks only leg supports that his it is we will not disturb an arbitration award within our discretion to vacate the award. if “even we find the basis for it to be Therefore, the narrow issue before us is ambiguous disagree[ or arbitra ] [the with whether the sup arbitrator’s conclusion is Citgo conclusions under tor’s] the law.” ported, any way, by interpre a rational Asphalt Refining Paper, Co. Allied- bargaining agree tation of the collective Indus., Energy Chem. & Workers Int’l duty ment. We reiterate that it is our to 2-991, Union Local No. 385 F.3d 816 urge resist the to conduct de novo review (3d Cir.2004), (quoting Stroehmann Baker of the award on the merits. See United ies, Union, Inc. v. Local Int’l Bhd. Team Paperworkers 484 U.S. of sters, (3d Cir.1992)). (we 1436, 1441 “are not authorized to S.Ct. recon- states, (3) guilty part: 9 U.S.C. in relevant where the arbitrators were of mis- refusing postpone hearing, conduct to the (a) any following In cases the United shown, upon refusing sufficient cause or in States court in and for the district wherein pertinent evidence hear material the may the award was made make an order controversy; or of other misbehavior vacating upon application the award of rights any party preju- which the of have been any party to the arbitration- —(cid:127) diced; or (1) procured by corrup- where the award was (4) pow- where the arbitrators exceeded their tion, fraud, means; ers, undue or imperfectly or so executed them that (2) mutual, partiality final, where there was evident or cor- upon and definite award arbitrators, them; ruption subject in the was or either of matter submitted not made. though bargaining agreement. of an award even the merits

sider allege supra., expressly that the award rests identifies parties of misinterpretation or on seniority on errors of fact in terms of the entire contract.”)- Rather, merely we ask goes that Article on to unit. Section of bar- to the collective parties seniority apply only whether the say rights that as got they what bar- gaining agreement expressly provided for for, who namely an gained upon a clear which the arbi- This is basis interpretation of the provide an would first seniority that trator could have concluded rationally that was based on contract preference existed unit-wide.6 This alone agreement, and second provides ample uphold basis to the award. BMA produce a rational award. would conclusion, support additional reference to contends that the arbitrator’s provisions of the arbitrator cited several not found the collective agreement: fatally taints the bargaining agreement example, For Section 1 defines award, reference is essential because this “bargaining unit-wide” and not within clas- ultimate conclusion arbitrator’s 2 provides sification. Section inseparable from the remainder of the is principle layoffs, is a factor such, As our focus must be award. promotional types recalls and certain discussion can whether the arbitrator’s provided employee ful- opportunities if support the award we excise the still ly qualified. specifies Section 5 language. We that it anomalous believe filling qualifications vacancies when the support. provide does such (2) relatively or more are applicants two first stated that he was The arbitrator *6 equal, preference will be based on seniori- contrary interpretations confronted with of ty. specifies Section that when the VIII, by Article offered BMA Employer decides to affect a recall from by parties, As framed the the UMWA. layoff, employees it will “consider with re- essentially issue the arbitrator was before rights call first within the clаssification plural whether use of the term “classifica- off, they by from which laid then were VIII, tions” in Article Section 10 enables first, seniority, upon the most senior based by layoff employees affected to exercise n the position preferences designated on the by bumping an- seniority rights their into proviso obviously forms.” This entitles taking other After notice of classification. employees senior to be recalled reverse generally the fact that hold arbitrators layoff position order of to a other than tо seniority provisions to be at of the heart off, they position the from which were laid bargaining agreement, collective he provided they qualified. are reviewing agreement’s set about vari- Furthermore, explained: Id. he provisions. ous pronounced arbitrator “conjunctive that a Arti- “in interpretation language of inverse order of cle of the [collective VIII the classification affected” agreement] leads to the con- inescapable bargain- Section 10 of the [collective parties consistently clusion that the ing agreement] interpreted have cannot be recognized seniority preference ...” prohibit by J.A. senior affected by at 73. out layoff exercising “bargaining This is born review of the from their pass-judgment 6. We cannot and do not on the or not his award draws its essence from the wisdom of the arbitrator's conclusion. All we bargaining agreement. empowered are to determine here is whether seniority rights unit-wide” less ment. Certainly, this was a mistake. Moreover, senior outside their classifi- this clearly mistake violates Ar- cation, provided they qualified. are XIV, ticle prohibition Section l’s against to, from, adding subtracting at 74. J.A. The arbitrator concluded his or modifying Nonetheless, by noting that provision review no in Arti- this error is insufficient to warrant vaca- agreement of the prevent VIII would cle tion of the judicial award. “Full-blown bumping bargaining unit-wide. J.A. at 75. review” of the arbitrator’s decision would reviewing After the totality of the annul bargain between BMA and arbitrator’s we are confident that UMWA for an arbitrator’s construction of solely upon award doеs not his rest agreement their replace it judi- with a by aberrant added the arbitrator. interpretation cial bargained was not it is true that support While the clearest Bakeries, for. Inc., Stroehmann arbitrator’s from conclusion comes at Only where there is manifest interpolated,7 he there is suf disregard for agreement can we over- ficient substance in the remainder of the ride an arbitrator. Because the remainder pass rationality discussion minimum justification of the for the award offered threshold. Faced with what hе perceived by the arbitrator capable was of separation as an incongruity position BMA’s between from the aberrant language, his decision and the bargaining unit-wide reflects an interpretation of the contract employees, at rights minimally is at least rooted in the tempted together, to construe and then collective bargaining agreement, and not to, give provisions effect all agree his “own justice.” brand industrial While BMA ment. take issue with Union, Paperworkers United Intern. contractual interpretation, this not U.S. 108 S.Ct. 364. Consequently, to justify sufficient vacatur of the award harmless, the arbitrator’s error was since Major this Court. See League Base he would have arrived ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍at the conclusion he Players ball Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. here, reached even absent the discussion (2001) 121 S.Ct. such, aberrant language. As our *7 curiam) (“if (per an arbitrator is even ar inquiry into the has award reached its guably construing or the contract applying jurisdictional limit, and we uphold must it. acting within the scope of his authori ty, the fact that a court convinced he IV. Conclusion committed serious error does not suffice to reasons, For foregoing the we affirm the decision.”) (internal overturn his quota decision of the Court. District omitted). tions AMBRO, Circuit Judge, dissenting.

BMA’s argument entire ar- rests the inexplicable quotation bitrator’s of lan- I believe this presents case the rare guage that present was not agree- the appropriate situation in which it is for our colleague award, 7. Our learned leg” reiterates in his dis- “bum of the arbitrator's there are undisputed that it is sent that the arbitrator many upon still others which this award can agreement modified in violation of agree stand. We do not with the dissent’s XIV, 1, that the arbitrator that, regardless justifi- assertion of what other authority. therefore exceeded his contractual cations there are for his the arbitra- only Had this been the sion, basis for his conclu- single tor's error alone allows us to void the agree we would appropri- that vacatur is award in toto. However, even ate. if were to we kick out the 244 it is language, this leave-no-doubt Despite an arbitration award. vacate

Court that, rеndering an arbitra- Therefore, undisputed dissent. respectfully I Union, in favor the the arbi- tion award of arbitration our review Although language in the CBA trator modified the by my colleagues stated awards is—as allowing “bump- provision to include deferential, courts majority highly — provision no such exists ing” where en- entitled nor nonetheless “neither are so, doing text of the CBA.8 actual in- stamp’ the simply ‘rubber couraged provision arbitrator violated of arbitrators.” and decisions terpretations modifying him from prohibited CBA that Inc., 108, Sys. 99 F.3d Ryder Matteson scoрe its terms. He thus exceeded Cir.1996). (3d courts re- The federal 113 authority. contractually delegated his of labor role the review significant tain a v. Local Pennsylvania Power Co. Union may vacate awards arbitration awards (3d Cir.2001) 174, 276 179 No. F.3d Id. at 113-14. under certain circumstances. (vacating an arbitration award because occurs when such circumstance One under powers arbitrator exceeded his disregard” for “manifest arbitrator shows “in by altering the CBA direct viola- CBA the terms of the that he had provision CBA’s] tion of [the (“CBA” “Agreement”) or is- аgreement so.”); 9 power no to do see also U.S.C. See, Major League Umpires e.g., sue. 10(a)(4) (providing that a federal court League Baseball Ass’n v. Am. of Profl may vacate an arbitration award “where (3d Cir.2004), Clubs, cert. F.3d — powers, the arbitrators exceeded their or U.S. -, denied, S.Ct. them that a mutu- imperfectly so executed (“[A]n 769, 2005 WL 35841 award L.Ed.2d al, final, upon the and definite award sub- if demon- may vacated be made.”). ject was not matter submitted CBA.”); disregard for the strates manifest Because, stated, “[s]imply an arbitrator Ledger v. Newark Morning Newark Co. beyond not venture the bounds Local Typographical Union (3d Cir.1986) (“[I]n authority,” Major League Umpires or her that rarest (internal Ass’n, quotation 357 F.3d at 279 disregard manifest of the [collec- case of omitted), I would vacate the arbitration agreement, [court] tive bargaining] line.”) (internal ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍ground on this alone. quotation award must draw the omitted). majority My colleagues recognize authority “inexplicable quota-

An derives the arbitrator’s her/his tion” of was a scope from the of the CBA and the not CBA terms parties. clear violation of Article IV 1 of that of the issues submitted Ass’n, Major Umpires Agreement. They 357 F.3d at nevertheless conclude League *8 case, cannot provides 279. In the CBA that that the arbitrator’s award be va- this binding rationally an final it arbitrator’s decision is and cated because was based I (Step language agree, on the Art. of the CBA. parties. CBA XIV 4). course, that an Importantly, explicitly the CBA also arbitration award must be upheld “any way” not if it is in rational related states that arbitrator shall add “[t]he to, See, from, modify any way language agreement. or in to the of the subtract agree at But I do not that provisions, e.g., of the terms conditions id. 280. o[r] added). here. Agreement.” (emphasis of this Id. this standard has been met fact, unsuccessfully negotiating In the Union had at- the CBAwhen its terms. tempted bumping provision to include in employee in classification, believed there was an another the ar- The arbitrator Brentwood Medical incongruity between bitrator twice cited and discussed the lan- (“BMA”) position that senior Associates’ guage regarding right bump to sen- employees right bump had no less very hе wrote into the section the CBA employees ior other work classifications under Id. at A compari- review. 73-74. seniority bargaining-unit rights and the language son the actual of the CBA the CBA. J.A. at provided language by with the used resolving purported incongruity this and (shown bold) highlights the differences finding employee that the here could ex- between two. seniority rights bump her and an ercise Actual Text of Bargaining Text Used Collective Agreement Decision_Page Arbitrator’s “... who ex- “The reduction will be seniority rights accomplished ercise in inverse bump must hаve the order of classifications in the skill, affected, qualifications,abili- J.A. ty physical provided fitness that the perform all of the to be retained skill, VIII, remaining in that must work have Art. qualifications,ability ...” classification physical fitness to perform all of the work

remaining in that classificationwithout training, and will assume remaining schedule.” n language agree my colleagues I do not This added informed the arbi- with reference, majority that the at (indeed arbitrator’s tipped trator’s it the bal- belief “ ‘plant-wide the end of his to the ance) position that the BMA took in the seniority’ system ... ingrained was inconsistent with the terms arbitration CBA”, Section of the J.A. CBA, causing ques- of the the arbitrator to support sufficient to a conclusion why language governing bumping tion was arbitrator’s award draws its essence from if, agreement included in the as BMA as- prior modifi- notwithstanding CBA serted, an employee whose classification cation of not was eliminated was allowed bargaining defines CBA employee an in another classification.9 only generieally unit-wide as follows: “Se- problem There was but one —the years, niority shall be defined as the with which the arbitrator believed BMA’s days employee an has worked months and position part inconsistent not was was Employer with the unit employee’s the CBA. since the last date of hire *9 "[I]f, seniority rights and 9. The arbitrator wrote: as as- who exercise [BMA] serts, skill, qualifications, apply only bump must abili- reductions '... in the inverse have the ty perform physical of the affect- fitness to all of the order in classifications " why “following language remaining ... [?]' ed was the work in that classification govern bumрing, at 74. [inserted] to to wit: J.A. (em- jobs junior employees § Art. from their in order CBA VIII Employer.” the added). layoff, provided they to their own avoid phasis junior the em- perform can the work of in this ease con- underlying dispute (internal quotation ployees.” Id. job employee an whose cerned whether omitted). abolished, and who classification had been any of being Far from there an “absence off, bump laid could facing being was thus however, provision,” the contract CBA in another classifi- employee a senior less “[sjeniority apply only that shall ... states a specific provi- The CBA contains cation. provided Agree- as for in this expressly Recalls,” “Layoff and see CBA sion for (emphasis Art. ment.” CBA VIII add- and, above, it Art. as discussed VIII ed). implying right bump In a to because misquot- that the arbitrator that section is provision prohibited bumping no contract award should not be ed. The arbitrator’s and because this result was consistent with general on the basis of the lan- upheld general principles, arbitration the arbitra- bargaining-unit seniority guage regarding again scope powers tor exceeded the of his VIII, in Article Section when the arbi- by ignoring applying the CBA’s ban on specific the more lan- trator first rewrote seniority “only expressly provided” layoffs guage regarding that he should Agreement Ignoring plain itself. lan- to applying dispute. have been resolve this guage language of all that set the —least forgive Humpty Dump- To the arbitrator’s authority' arbitrator’s no-no of first —-is specific provision ty approach to Paperworkers rank. Int’l See United Un- general to a play by refеrring statement Misco, Inc., 29, 38, ion v. 484 U.S. decreeing akin to that (1987); Pennsyl- S.Ct. general mercy expiates specific call for Co., vania Power 276 F.3d at 178. commandment not to kill. sum, in this case di- assuming that the arbitrator’s add- Even rectly plain language contradicted the of language separated ed could be from the scope CBA thus exceeded the of decision, rest of his the award should still (1) powers by: his altering sup- be faced with vacated. When Agreement express to an right include posed position disconnect between BMA’s bump аcross classifications in defiance bumping that outside of one’s own classifi- provision prohibiting any the CBA mod- cation not allowed should be and the bar- (2) ification of language; reading its gaining-unit seniority rights outlined into the a right CBA because no CBA, the arbitrator came down favor of provision prohibited of the CBA it in defi- allowing bumping across classifications. provision stating ance of the ‍‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‍CBA that He that provision noted there was no seniority rights may only applied be as the CBA, of the Article VIII the section deal- provides. ignorе plain CBA itself To ing seniority, with prohibit would CBA, rely and to on lan- bumping. bumping He also found that guage reaching not contained in it in across classifications was “consistent with opposite issuing are the an that, authority arbitral which holds award that drew its from essence contract provision, absence it is CBA. universally recognized by almost arbitra- gov- tors senior who are Our deferential standard of review in ‘plant-wide seniority’ system, erned labor arbitration cases mean that we imagined such as is in Article uphold arbitration awards but snow CBA[,] 1 of the the right bump August. have But when an arbitrator rewrites *10 bargaining agreement as he (making did here manifest an utter disre- words),

gard for the actual CBA’s or finds

a meaning to exist because it is not ex-

pressed, uphold and we either sleight-of-

hand, “deference” becomes a “rubber If

stamp.” this arbitrator’s award evades

vacating, what respect- award does not? I dissent.

fully

In re: UNITED HEALTHCARE

SYSTEM, INC., Debtor

The Reconstituted Committee of Unse-

cured Creditors of Health- the United System, Inc., Appellant

care Jersey Department

State of New

of Labor.

No. 03-4768.

United States of Appeals, Court

Third Circuit.

Argued Oct.

Filed Jan.