The Timken Company v. Local Union No. 1123, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio
482 F.2d 1012
6th Cir.
1973
Check Treatment

*1 COMPANY, Plаintiff- The TIMKEN Appellee, 1123, UNITED UNION NO.

LOCAL AMERICA, OF STEELWORKERS Defendants-Appellants. al., AFL-CIO, et

No. 72-1844. Appeals, States Court

United Circuit. Sixth

Argued Jan. 1973. July

Decided Frankel, United Steelworkers B. Carl Pa., Pittsburgh, AFL-CIO, Rudolph L. defendants-appellants; ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‍for Bredhoff, Pa., Pittsburgh, Milasich, Jr., Peer, Gottesman, & Barr, Cohen Wash-i Taylor, Jaffy

ington, dayman, & C.,D. brief; Ohio, Klei Columbus, Bernard Chicago,Ill., man, cоunsel. Ohio, Canton, F. Buchman, John Ketterer, plaintiff-appellee; G. John Rybolt, Wright Raley, Ketterer, & Day, Canton, Ohio, on brief. *2 agree- PHILLIPS, Judge, bargaining agreement.

Before Chief tive The KENNEDY,* PECK, Judge, provides: Circuit ment Judge. length employee’s District shall “An of service previous

be broken credit for аll by: service lost Judge. PECK, Circuit Voluntarily quitting “1. the serv- (an Company ice of the unauthorized sought, complaint herein under 29 The (7) absence of seven consecutive 12, an order 185 and 9 U.S.C. U.S.C. § § days scheduled shall be consid- work- ” award. a labоr arbitrator’s voluntary quit); . ered a . . . following a The award had been entered “voluntary The the found hearing grievance ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‍employee’s on an quit” provision inapplicable eases alleging improper separation. an employee such here had no as where the District vacated that award on the Court quit promptly noti- intention to and had basis that the Arbitrator had exceeded employer predicament. fied the of his According authority. Arbitrator, affirm. to the the “volun- We tary ap- quit” intended to was Tyson, employee appel- ply employee’s an of the

Thad the to those cases where whereabouts lee-corporatiоn ap- were unknown the em- and a member ployee was in control of the circum- pellant union, a was to serve sentenced stances and him- nevertheless absented jail by Municipal day term a Court longer pre- sеlf from work for than the Judge pled Canton, Ohio, Tyson after period. ruled scribed The Arbitrator guilty to two traffic offenses. On discharge that the termination un-’ was a workday Tyson be- next scheduled after bargaining agree- der Article X of thе gan serving Tyson’s wife his sentence, Tyson ment and entitled to re- that was reported appellee-employer that to the appellee-employer instatement since the her would be unavailable husband comply had failed to with Article X’s re- work. At a later date she advised quirements regarding discharge. Arti- was tes- provides: he was in confinement. There cle X hearing timony at the arbitration employee “A. Before is dis- an by appеllee’s the wife was advised charged, either in or outside of the general department works, in ex- the su- foreman that such absence which he discharge pervisor making workdays who is cess seven consecutive will call the Union or member Steward De- would result in a termination. On Committee, the Plant Grievance 30, 1970, separation cember a notice was order, depart- if available appellee-employer on the issued employee ment at which works Tyson’s absence basis of unauthorized discharge, the time of the and will ac- workdays. For for seven consecutive quaint him with the circumstances record, apparent reasons not from casе, and will also tell the em- Tyson on was released from confinement ployee, presence in the of the Union serving only January 15, 1971, after Representative, why employee is days, whereupon received notice he being discharged. sepa- separation. Responding to the employee “B. In the event an shall be grievance notice, on ration he filed discharged employment from his grievance January 25, was 1971. The and after the date hereof and he be- deter- who submitted an arbitrator discharged improp- lieves he has been appellee-employer had mined erly, discharge such shall constitute a employment wrongfully arising terminatеd case under the method of ad- justing grievances provided. “voluntary quit” their collec- herein as a under * Judge Kennedy, for the Eastern District United States G. Honorable Cornelia designation. Michigan, sitting by leading case As stated awаrd. decided it should be

In the event subject, guilty mat- employee is not charged dis- of his ter as basis construction “It is the arbitrator’s charge, Company reinstate shall for; bargained as and so far that was compensa- pay employee full such con- concerns decision the arbitrator’s regular employee’s rate at tion pay contract, courts struction of the *3 wages from em- any received less overruling him be- have no business place ployment accepted of his in interpretation the con- of cause their Company employment the former with ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‍United from his.” tract is different compensation unemployment Enterprise v. of America and/оr Steelworkers during period 599, of back 593, received pay. the Corp., 363 Wheel & Car U.S. 1358, 1362, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 80 S.Ct. (I960).1 discharge, In of “C. all such cases signed by grievance Accordingly, the mani the award the written unless given to discharged employee infidelity be shall the a clear to arbitrator’s fests supervisor obligation ten drawing within of the his immediate of “essence” days bargaining agree of (10) the date calendar the from the award discharge discharge. of an em- ment, to The refuse substitute a court must any ployee judgment final case where of shall be in merits that its on the grievance Enterprise, supra, not at is filed such written the arbitrator. day (10) pe- 1358; 597, see, also, within ten such calendar Baldwin- 80 S.Ct. handling agreed riod. It is that v. International Montrose Chemical Co. grievance discharge any involving Cork, Union, Rubber, the Linoleum United employee, provisions of of an the Arti- AFL- and of Plastic Workers Adjustment CIO, 1967). cle Grievances (6th of 383 F.2d 796 Cir. IX— commencing Step be fol- with 3 shall testimony of the uncontroverted As lowed time limits as outlined with the indicates, appellee’s personnel director below: . .” . . appellee a had consistent maintained award, In denying categorically policy autho- of Court held that since the Arbitrator did to employees rized to confined absences employee’s not find that the absence was jail. However, be- the Arbitrator went by employer, authorized Arbitra- yоnd testimony the record and this and by appellee-employer’s tor was discriminatory bound concluded that there was un- determination that was by the absence denying appellee in au- conduct authorized and should hаve sustained jail thorizations in the confinement situ- ruling that the unauthorized absence maintaining ations, apparently a while voluntary quit awas within the terms policy in- liberal authorization bargaining agreement. the collective injury. еmployee’s illness stance an According Arbitrator, incon- to Considering aspect of first sistency was sufficient invalidate judicial award, of an review arbitrator’s Tyson’s lack and of authorization in case we note arе se that the federal courts a dis- cause the matter to be considered by verely function restricted their charge. See, As re statute. sult, 9 a U.S.C. 10. § empowered We conclude the Arbitra while is to de a court finding authority tor еxceeded his as termine an whether arbitrator’s award “voluntary quit” provision he The did. exceeded the limits of his contractual agreement authority specifically applies (see, Helpers Truck Drivers & Ulry-Talbert Co., v. circumstances “an unauthorized ab Union Local 784 330 (7) (8th 1964)), may it sence for seven consecutive sched F.2d 562 Cir. not days.” Consequently uled there the merits work review of an arbitration case, Enterprise proper judiciary third of the labor arbi- role of the trilogy, famous Steelworkers outlined the tration cases. encompass may such subject go the record outside need to was no nothing ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‍meaning, offers the record but the term other definitions considеr meaning purposely was its agree to show bargaining “quit.” A collective parties a ra- by to such restricted the arbi all a contract ment is after indi- evidence In the absence interpretation tionale. to the limited trator is cating contract parties to this John application that contract. scope intended to restrict Livingston, Sons, U. Wiley Inc. & “unauthorized,” conclude we term L.Ed. 84 S.Ct. S. authority in his agree exceeded (1964). Particularly an where purpose stating without provision’s own provides of its ment definitions a conclu- support Such in the record. clearly exceeds terms, the arbitrator particularly merited since conflicting sion is def authority seeking own clauses, agreement standard contains record. initions outside the foreclosing language today, the arbitra- many that, recognize con as We *4 substituting his discretion tor from many tracts, unforesee there are far tоo mod- company’s for and contingencies require reliance able to language agreement. ifying of bargaining agreements as the collective then, rights Considering, of the indications of and duties. the exclusive source language parties’ including bar intentions such as collective All contracts context, agreements, Arbitra- gaining we conclude are executed rationally only legislation not cannot be tor’s award law and context of common agreement but also govern rights of from the duties deduced which infidelity recognized to the arbitra- contracting parties. manifests clear A obligation of to the essence provide draw shop operates tor’s to law bargaining agree- agreements only the award from if be context for the ment. of the “institutional characteris cause governmental of the tics and the nature judgment District Court is of the Cox, bargaining process.” Re collective affirmed. Arbitration, Upon 72 flections Labor (1959). 1482, Harv.L.Rev. 1498-1500 Judge, PHILLIPS, Chief HARRY only to Here the referred Arbitrator has (dissenting). ap one 1960 which arbitration award respectfully hold I I dissent. would pears questionable application and was based the arbitrator’s decision to has made no reference whatsoever upon interpretation the collective his 2 shop practices. such, bargaining agreement. it As oрined In inappropriate the Arbitrator addition, for Court would be purpose quit” “voluntary that the of the judgment affirm the of the District

provision discipline employees is to who Court award arbitration though jobs, disagree abandon their the merely may even because we with any record does not evidence of analysis contain made the arbitrator. purpose parties the intent or v. United Steelworkers of America See placing аgreement. in the Mfg. 564, Co., American 80 S. 363 U.S. (1960); The term 1343, ‍‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​​‌​​​​​‌​‌​​‍“unauthorized” as used 4 L.Ed.2d Ct. 1403 regard, parties dispense In this we intimate no view as to “his of the merits, but, rather, merely justice,” notice that the en own brand industrial though even have could must denied. forcement of award be properly Enterprise, supra; utilized sources outside See United Steelwork agreement guidance context, ers America v. & Gulf Navi Warrior opin- gation Co., 574, 1347, dearth of such information 363 80 S.Ct. U.S. (1960) ; ion makes it difficult to contradict 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 United Steel unambiguous language agreement. workers of America v. American Manu Co., facturing 564, It is axiomatic if the arbitrator 363 80 U.S. S.Ct. to, effect, 1343, (1960). undertook amend the con- 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 tract, to substitute his own discretion for 1016

United Steelworkers of America v. War Navigation Co., rior & Gulf 363 U.S.

574, 1347, 80 4 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. (1960); United of Ameri Corp., Steelworkers Enterprise ca v. Wheel & Car 593, U.S. 80 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 1424

(1960); United Steelworkers of Ameri Bearing Co.,

ca Timken Roller v. 324 F. (6th 1963).

2d Cir. Court, The decision of the

my opinion, should be reversed.

UNITED STATES Appellee, *5 ALTER, Appellant.

Mark Lawrence

No. 73-1121. Appeals,

United States Court of

Ninth Circuit.

July 23, 1973.