[Dis-res] RDDR January 14, 2008 to January 21, 2008

[Kattarina H Simons]

Recent Developments in Dispute Resolution
Willamette University College of Law
Center for Dispute Resolution
January 14, 2008 through January 21, 2008

Arbitration: Court must affirm arbitrator where no fraud, within scope,
and construing contract, even where arbitrator’s interpretation is
incorrect. (6th Cir.)

Arbitration:  The presumption of arbitrability in collective bargaining
agreements applies to disputes between the company and retirees when the
retirees’ union files a grievance. (9th Cir.)


Truck Drivers Local No. 164 v. Allied Waste Systems, Inc., 2008 WL 50090
(6th Cir., January 4, 2008).

Miller, an employee of Allied Waste Systems, Inc. (Allied) and a member of
Truck Drivers Local No. 164 (Union) had a minor accident which resulted in
no loss for Allied, but Allied terminated Miller for violation of company
practices and policies. Miller filed a grievance with the Union, which
went to arbitration. At issue in the arbitration were CBA clauses
requiring just cause for termination of an employee, but limiting the
arbitrator’s power to determining whether a violation had occurred. The
arbitrator found for the Union, and Allied sued. The lower court found for
Allied, and the Union appealed. The 6th Circuit, following its recently
established precedent, held that the arbitrator’s award could only be
overturned if the arbitrator acted outside the scope of her authority,
committed fraud or conflict of interest, or was not arguably construing or
applying the contract. In this case, none of these grounds were met, and
the Court reversed and remanded for determination of proper back wages.
(KS)

Full text of the opinion is available online at Westlaw, pending
publication in F.3d.


United Steel Workers of America v. Retirement Income Plan for Hourly-Rated
Employees of ASARCO, Inc., 2008 WL 62449 (9th Cir., 7 January 2008).

ASARCO is a copper smelting plant that was forced to lay off employees,
some of who were entitled to collect benefits under a collective
bargaining agreement.  United Steelworkers (the Union) filed a grievance
on behalf of the former employees to enter into arbitration with ASARCO
for violating the agreement.  The District Court compelled arbitration,
but ASARCO appealed on the grounds that the workers did not have the right
to arbitrate their claims.  The Union argued that national labor policy
presumed arbitrability for disputes arising out of collective bargaining
agreements.  ASARCO argued that the presumption is inapplicable because
the named appellees were retired and posed no risk of labor disruption. 
The court held that it was the union that brought the grievance so there
was still a threat of labor disruption which the presumption of
arbitrability was designed to prevent.  ASARCO could not overcome the
presumption because it did not show the dispute was “not susceptible of an
interpretation” that fell outside the arbitration clause.  (AH)

The full text of this opinion may be found on Westlaw.


Fall Editor: Kattarina Simons
Faculty Advisors:  Richard Birke/A. Lee Jordan