LOCAL UNION NO. 251, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
NARRAGANSETT IMPROVEMENT COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 74-1157.
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 9, 1974.
Decided Sept. 24, 1974.
Patrick A. Liguori and Adler, Pollock & Sheehan Inc., Providence, R.I., on brief for appellant.
Dennis J. Roberts, II, and Roberts & Willey Inc., Providence, R.I., on brief for appellee.
Bеfore COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.
McENTEE, Circuit Judge.
This appeal stems from confirmation by the district court of an arbitration award pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 185 (1970) and 9 U.S.C. 9 (1970). The appellant contеnds that the district court erred in ruling that no grounds for vacating the award existed under 9 U.S.C. 10 (1970).
Arbitration is the final dispute-resolving mechanism in the collective bargaining agreement between Narragansett (the company) and its employees. This dispute arose out of the discharge of a truck driver after a heated argument with his supervisor. The employee contended that his discharge lacked just cause and therefore violated the collective bargaining agreement. The company claimed that the employee was discharged because he had an excessive accident record and was otherwise delinquent, and that he had in fact been discharged on two previous occasions. It put forward some partially contested evidence at the arbitration heаring with regard both to the accident record and the previous discharges. In his award, the arbitrator stated that the accident record had not been stressed as a reason for the discharge until the hearing. He also stated regarding the contested discharges that company records verified only one such incident, that that incident was a threatened rather than actual discharge, that that warning had occurred over two years ago, and that 'warnings of this type are usually nullified after such a period of time.' The arbitrator concluded that the driver was discharged for the verbal altercation with his supervisor and for threatеning him with a steel pipe. The arbitrator held this to be justification for disciplinary layoff but not 'just cause' for discharge, and therefore ordered reinstatement. When the company did not reinstate the employee, the union sought confirmation of the award in the district court.
The company's answer affirmatively allegеd grounds for vacating the award. At the arbitration hearing the company had sought a postponement to present further testimony about the previous discharges and the accident record. No reason for such a postponement seems to have been offered the arbitrator, nor was one voiсed below. The arbitrator denied the request, and the company sought to have his award vacated on the ground that the refusal constituted 'misconduct' within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. 10(c).1 The district court confirmed the award, and the company appeals.
The district court did not err. Congress has carefully limited the scope оf judicial review of arbitration awards. Where judicially enforceable arbitration is agreed to and confirmation of the award is sought, 'the court must grant such аn order unless the award is vacated, modified, or corrected as prescribed in sections 10 and 11 of this title.' 9 U.S.C. 9 (1970). The courts are precluded from considering factual or legal issues which are by voluntary agreement made the subject of arbitration. Judicial intrusion is restricted to extraordinary situations indicating abuse of arbitral power to exercise of power beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Transport Workers Union v. Philadelphia Transp. Co.,
The aрpellant attempts to meet this burden by arguing that under 10(c) the failure to postpone and the resulting exclusion of allegedly material and relevant evidenсe rise to the level of unfairness or misconduct. While a postponement and the subsequent reception of additional testimony might have provided somе support for the company's claims, deprivation of this possibility alone does not constitute misconduct under 10(c). In a case in which the disciplinary record of an employee is at issue in determining whether good cause for discharge existed, it is not misconduct for an arbitrator to discount disputed oral testimony and to rely more heavily on the fact that the previous charges against the employee were not sufficiently substantiated in the company recоrds. Moreover, even if the proposed testimony were necessary to decide an issue, the company does not appear to have givеn any explanation as to why a postponement was necessary to assure a fair proceeding. There has been no assertion of surprise by thе company, and the arbitrator stated that the company apparently knew its records were not specific enough to provide confirmation of all the charges. Nor is there evidence that the proposed witnesses were unavailable at the time of the hearing. The basic purpose of arbitration is to dispose of disputes without excessive delay and expense. The arbitrator's refusal to countenance a delay here was within his discretion and did not deprive the company of a fair proceeding.
To support its view the company cites Harvey Aluminum v. United Steel-workers of America,
Appellant's position in this case reduces to a claim that it is entitled to a postponement merely by asking for it. Such a view is obviously unacceptable. We reiterate that we are disinclined to tolerate frivolous delay in labor disрutes. NLRB v. Smith & Wesson,
Notes
Section 10 authorizes a district court to vacate an award
'(a) Where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means.
(b) Where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrators . . ..
(c) Where the arbitrаtors were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party have been prejudiced.
(d) Where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or sо imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.' 9 U.S.C. 10 (1970).
In addition to its 10(c) claim, the company also adduced arguments for vacating the award based on 10(a), 10(b), and 10(d), but those arguments are wholly without merit.