Richard A. Whalen v. The Roanoke County Board of Supervisors William F. Clark, Individually Raymond Eugene Robertson, Individually
797 F.2d 170
4th Cir.
1986
Check Treatment

*1 170 63, get. (1982). As 74

graphical Indeed, would an S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 65 Union we as vacations. If example, you mentioned in Ludwig Co., we said Mfg. Honold “ using I’m an arbi- they received—and ‘whether the arbitrators misconstrued a they took to trary figure $10 of and $20 open contract’ does judi- not the award to vacations, buy you may not allow while (citation cial review.” 405 F.2d at 1128 vacations, giv- buy you would have us to omitted). through the 10 en us the You have $20. I believe the arbitrator’s award can be was, the amount no mat- years, whatever interpreted having as a rational basis in the it. they ter what did with record. strong policy The national favor- testimony hearing, at I light In of the the ing the disputes arbitration of labor re- unwilling am to find that the arbitrator’s quires no more than that. in the does not have a rational basis award legitimately may The arbitrator record. III. parties, the upon history draw the between Because I believe that the arbitrator’s shop,” in addition the so-called “law of the award “draws its essence from the collec- principles to of contract construction. bargaining agreement, tive I would reverse Co., Ludwig Mfg. 405 F.2d at 1128. Honold the decision of the district court and rein- In the of a direct conflict between absence the of state award the arbitrator. language the of the collec the award and bargaining agreement, tive we should en interpretation

force the arbitrator’s of the agreement shop. and the law of the See Super Engineering Tire Co. v. Teamsters 676, 121, 124(8d 721 F.2d Local Union No. — Cir.1983), denied, -, cert. U.S. 105 83, (1984). 83 L.Ed.2d 31 S.Ct. majority ignores The errs when it the applies princi arbitrator’s view and its own WHALEN, Appellant, Richard A. ples interpretation. of contract United v. America, Steelworkers AFL-CIO v. of The ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF Co., Smelting Refining American 648 & SUPERVISORS; Clark, F. In- William 863, Cir.1981) (3d (“Although F.2d 869 dividually; Raymond Eugene Robert- arguments these are forceful as a matter son, Individually; Appellees. interpretation, of contract courts not are free to refuse to vacate arbitration awards No. 83-2095. they might merely interpret because have Appeals, United States Court of differently up ed the contract were it to Fourth Circuit. instance.”), denied, them in the first cert. 1031, 102 567, 70

454 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 474 3, Argued Feb. 1986. (1981). permitted The courts are not to 28, July Decided 1986. unclear, ambiguous, “disturb and even de liberately opague opinions arbitration be in policy peaceful

cause ‘the favor of the disputes through resolution of labor arbi outweighs any damage tration which arbi ” might Arco-Polymers, tration cause.’ 8-74, 752, (3d v. 671 F.2d Inc. Local 755 Cir.) (quoting Amalgamated Meat Cutters America, North

& Butchers Workmen of 195, Local v. Brothers AFL-CIO Cross Packers, Inc., 1113, (3d F.2d 1120 Meat 518 Cir.1975)), denied, 828, cert. 459 U.S. 103

171 *2 our are conclusion set forth in the concur ring dissenting opinion and by filed Judge part opinion Ervin as of the original of the panel. Whalen v. Roanoke County Board Supervisors, 221, (4th 769 F.2d 226 Cir. of 1985).

AFFIRMED. WINTER,

HARRISON L. Judge, Chief dissenting: respectfully

I dissent for the reasons set forth in II Judge Parts and III of Butzner’s panel opinion, and my Part III of concur- ring and dissenting panel opinion. I would judgment reverse the of the district court remanding without the case for reconsider- ation of the motion for a new trial. America, Appellee, UNITED of STATES

v. Smith, III, Va., Abingdon, S. Strother for Henry WRIGHT, James Shawn a/k/a

appellant. Carolyn Wright, Denvers and a/k/a Carolyn Anderson, Denvers (Thomas Lisa William B. Leggette; Poff A. a/k/a Appellants. Woods, Muse, Rogers, Thornton, Walker & Buchholtz, Roanoke, Va., James E. on No. 85-5510. brief), appellees. for Appeals, United States Court of WINTER, Judge, Before Chief RUS- Fourth Circuit. SELL, WIDENER, HALL, PHILLIPS, Argued 5,May 1986. SPROUSE, MURNAGHAN, ERVIN, WILKINSON, CHAPMAN and Circuit 4, Aug. Decided 1986. Judges. PER CURIAM:

Being convinced that the district court in correctly granting ruled William F. judgment Clark’s motion for notwithstand ing following jury the verdict in the verdict Whalen, favor of A. Richard we affirm the district court’s The decision.* bases for

* light concerning judgment Wright In of our action the Clark’s motion for a new trial. See 9 C. verdict, Miller, notwithstanding the we need not ad- Federal and A. Practice and Procedure (1971). propriety dress the of the conditional denial of 2540 at 618 §