Oklahoma Fixture Co. v. UBC, et.al. ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JUN 11 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
OKLAHOMA FIXTURE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
No. 97-5009
LOCAL 942 INTERNATIONAL
(D.C. No. 96-CV-216-B)
BROTHER-HOOD OF CARPENTERS
(N.D. Okla.)
AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, sued
as: United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
Local No. 943 and Mary Shirley,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, EBEL and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Oklahoma Fixture Company (OFC) appeals the district court's denial of its
motion for summary judgment and grant of summary judgment in favor of Mary
Shirley and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, Local No. 943 (the Union).
On March 22, 1995, OFC terminated Ms. Shirley's employment pursuant to
Article 5.5(F) of the collective bargaining agreement between it and the Union.
Article 5.5(F) provides an employee shall lose his seniority rights,
[w]ith the exception of lay-off, if he has performed no work for the
Company for a period of one hundred eighty (180) calendar days in a
twelve (12) month period (the 180 calendar days does not mean
consecutive days) without regard for the reason the employee has
performed no work for the Company for such period.
The Union filed a grievance on behalf of Ms. Shirley which was submitted to
arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement.
After a hearing and supplemental briefing, the arbitrator found in favor of
Ms. Shirley. The arbitrator determined the 180-day limit on missed work should
not include days when OFC's plant was closed or vacation days when no work
could be done. The arbitrator calculated that if weekends, holidays, and vacation
were counted towards the 180-day limit, an employee could be terminated if she
missed nine work weeks in the course of a twelve-month period. The arbitrator
-2-
found this conflicted with the twelve weeks of job-protected leave under the
Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. (1994). The arbitrator then
ordered Ms. Shirley reinstated with no loss in seniority, if she produced a medical
release to return to work.
On March 19, 1996, OFC filed this action requesting the arbitration award
be vacated. On December 16, 1996, the district court granted summary judgment
in favor of Ms. Shirley and the Union finding no basis to overturn the arbitrator's
award.
On appeal, OFC contends the arbitrator's award was based upon her
interpretation of the FMLA, not the plain language of the collective bargaining
agreement. OFC asserts the Arbitrator improperly applied her own brand of
justice based on sympathy for Ms. Shirley and her reading of the FMLA. OFC
also argues there is no conflict between Article 5.5(F) and the FMLA.
We review the district court's grant or denial of summary judgment de novo
applying the same legal standard as the district court. NCR Corp., E & M-Wichita
v. International Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, District Lodge No. 70,
906 F.2d 1499, 1500 (10th Cir. 1990). The Federal Arbitration Act authorizes
-3-
vacation of an arbitrator’s award "[w]here the arbitrators exceeded their powers,
or so imperfectly executed them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the
subject matter submitted was not made." 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) (1994). "An
arbitrator's erroneous interpretations or applications of law are not reversible."
ARW Exploration Corp. v. Aguirre, 45 F.3d 1455, 1463 (10th Cir. 1995) (citing
Wilko v. Swan, 346 U.S. 427, 436-37 (1953)). Only "manifest disregard" of the
law is reversible. Id. We will not vacate an arbitrator's award unless it is "so
unfounded in reason and fact, so unconnected with the wording and purpose of
the ... agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the obligation of the arbitrator that
the essence of the award has not been drawn from the [a]greement or that it
violates the express language of the [a]greement." International Bhd. of Elec.
Workers, Local Union No. 611, AFL-CIO v. Public Serv. Co. of N.M., 980 F.2d
616, 619 (10th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Our independent review of the arbitrator’s decision and award, in light of
our settled standard of review, satisfies us that the arbitrator here stayed well
within her prescribed bounds of authority and the governing law when she
construed Article 5.5(F) to exclude days when OFC was not open and there was
no opportunity to work. At arbitration, OFC argued the language of Article
5.5(F) clearly states a "calendar day" is a simple twenty-four-hour day as
-4-
established by the calendar, regardless of whether the plant is open for business or
not. In contrast, Ms. Shirley and the Union asserted a "calendar day" cannot
include those days where the plant is not open for business since the purpose of
having a worker present to do the job only makes sense if the plant is open. In
rejecting OFC's and accepting the Union's interpretation of a "calendar day," the
arbitrator found that "[t]o establish a policy that would run afoul of Federal law
(leaving only nine five day work weeks as opposed to 12 week of FMLA) doesn't
make sense or lend itself to the company interpretation." We hold this decision is
well within the arbitrator's authority and it draws its essence from the collective
bargaining agreement between the parties.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's order of December 17, 1996.
Entered for the Court
WADE BRORBY
United States Circuit Judge
-5-