District 28, UMWA v. Consolidation Coal ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    DISTRICT 28, UNITED MINE WORKERS
    OF AMERICA; LOCAL UNION 1640;
    JERRY E. DEEL,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    No. 96-1430
    v.
    CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY;
    ISLAND CREEK COAL COMPANY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.
    Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.
    (CA-95-108-A)
    Argued: January 30, 1997
    Decided: March 11, 1997
    Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and CLARKE,
    Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
    Virginia, sitting by designation.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    _________________________________________________________________
    COUNSEL
    ARGUED: Daniel H. Sachs, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
    AMERICA, Castlewood, Virginia, for Appellants. Mary Lynn Tate,
    TATE, LOWE & ROWLETT, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for Appel-
    lees. ON BRIEF: Fredrick A. Rowlett, TATE, LOWE & ROW-
    LETT, P.C., Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellees.
    _________________________________________________________________
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
    Local Rule 36(c).
    _________________________________________________________________
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    Jerry Deel was fired from his employment with Island Creek Coal
    Company ("Island Creek") after he tested positive for use of prescrip-
    tion drugs. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between
    the United Mine Workers ("UMWA") and Island Creek, the parties'
    dispute proceeded to arbitration. Arbitrator Thomas Sedwick found
    that Deel had been discharged for "just cause" and therefore denied
    Deel's grievance. Deel and UMWA then filed a complaint with the
    U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia seeking to
    vacate the decision of the arbitrator. On cross motions for summary
    judgment, U.S. District Judge Samuel G. Wilson granted Island
    Creek's motion and denied the motion by Deel and UMWA. Deel and
    UMWA now appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment
    in favor of Island Creek. For the reasons stated below, we affirm the
    district court's ruling.
    I.
    Deel began work with Island Creek in 1974 and was employed
    there continuously until his termination on April 13, 1995. At the time
    of his termination, Deel was employed as an electrician at Island
    Creek's Virginia Pocahontas #3 Mine. On May 11, 1994, Deel over-
    dosed on Valium and was admitted into a hospital for six days. Deel
    returned to work on May 26, 1994, but only worked for one day. He
    thereafter checked himself into a drug rehabilitation program. On
    June 6, 1994, Daniel French, Supervisor of Human Resources for
    Island Creek, visited Deel and presented him with a"substance abuse
    2
    rehabilitation program agreement." Under the agreement, Island
    Creek would pay for 21 days of treatment in addition to the seven
    days of treatment covered by Deel's medical insurance in exchange
    for Deel's agreement to drug testing. Deel signed the agreement and
    returned to work on July 11, 1994.
    After returning to work, Deel was tested for drugs a total of four
    times. The first three tests were negative, but the fourth tested positive
    for barbiturates and Valium. Island Creek suspended Deel and con-
    ducted an investigation into Deel's drug use. It was found that Deel
    was under the care of three different doctors and had obtained at least
    one prescription without informing the doctor of his drug addiction.
    After it was determined that Deel had no explanation or excuse for
    his use of the drugs, Island Creek terminated Deel.
    Deel filed a grievance against Island Creek pursuant to the National
    Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1993 ("NBCWA") arguing that
    he was discharged without cause. Arbitrator Thomas Sedwick deter-
    mined that the rehabilitation agreement signed by Island Creek and
    Deel was void because UMWA was not involved in its negotiation.
    Arbitrator Sedwick nevertheless found that Island Creek did have just
    cause to terminate Deel because Deel's drug use posed an unaccept-
    able danger in the workplace. Deel and UMWA then filed a complaint
    in the Western District of Virginia seeking to have the arbitrator's
    decision vacated. Relying on Article III of the NBCWA, the district
    court found that the NBCWA's guarantee of a safe and healthful work
    environment was sufficient to support the arbitrator's finding of just
    cause and that the arbitrator's decision therefore drew its essence
    from the NBCWA.
    II.
    Because the question of whether a labor arbitrator has exceeded the
    scope of his authority is a question of law, we"`stand in the shoes of
    the district court'" and review the district court's ruling de novo.
    Island Creek Coal Co. v. District 28, UMWA, 
    29 F.3d 126
    , 129 (4th
    Cir. 1994) (quoting Upshur Coals Corp. v. United Mine Workers of
    Am., Dist. 31, 
    933 F.2d 225
    , 228 (4th Cir. 1991)).
    Federal courts must give "special judicial deference" to an arbitra-
    tor's decision, and the court's review of an arbitrator's award under
    3
    Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec-
    tion 185, is very limited. 
    Id.
     Because the parties to a collective bar-
    gaining agreement bargained for interpretations of the contract by an
    arbitrator, federal courts should not impose their own interpretation of
    a labor contract in place of that of the arbitrator. 
    Id.
     Instead, federal
    courts should overturn the decision of an arbitrator only if the deci-
    sion is based on the arbitrator's own personal notions of right and
    wrong and is not based on the terms of the collective bargaining
    agreement. United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 
    484 U.S. 29
    , 38 (1987); Island Creek, 
    29 F.3d at 129
    .
    III.
    The issue before the arbitrator was not just whether the rehabilita-
    tion agreement signed by Island Creek and Deel was valid, as argued
    by the Appellants. The issue was whether Deel had been terminated
    for just cause,1 as required by the NBCWA.2 Arbitrator Sedwick was
    therefore within his authority when he proceeded to decide the issue
    of just cause.
    Arbitrator Sedwick's finding that Deel's termination was for just
    cause was based not upon his own notions of right and wrong, but on
    the NBCWA, which requires both employers and employees to main-
    tain a safe and healthful work environment.3 So long as the arbitrator
    is "even arguably construing or applying the contract," Misco, 
    484 U.S. at 38
    , the arbitrator's finding must be upheld. Given the special
    deference accorded arbitrators' awards, this Court has no reason to
    _________________________________________________________________
    1 The Court notes that even the Appellants stated the issue as such dur-
    ing their arguments before the arbitrator. (Tr. of Arbitration Hr'g at 10).
    2 Article XXIV, Section (a) of the NBCWA states:
    No employee covered by this Agreement may be disciplined or
    discharged except for just cause. The burden shall be on the
    Employer to establish grounds for discharge in all proceedings
    under this Agreement.
    3 Article III, Section (a) of the NBCWA states in pertinent part:
    Every employee covered by this Agreement is entitled to a safe
    and healthful place to work, and the parties jointly pledge their
    individual and joint efforts to maintain this objective.
    4
    question Arbitrator Sedwick's determination that Deel's use of drugs
    on the job and his failure to come to terms with his drug problem
    posed a safety risk to himself and his fellow employees. By creating
    such a risk, Deel was arguably in violation of his duty to maintain a
    safe working environment under the NBCWA. Arbitrator Sedwick
    therefore fulfilled his obligation to base his finding on the terms of
    the NBCWA.
    IV.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Arbitrator Sed-
    wick's ruling was based on the terms of the collective bargaining
    agreement between Island Creek and UMWA. Accordingly, the Court
    finds that the district court properly refused to disturb the arbitrator's
    decision, and the district court's ruling is
    AFFIRMED.
    5