Trustees of Boston University v. Boston University Chapter, American Association of University Professors, Trustees of Boston University v. Boston University Chapter, American Association of University Professors

Citations: 746 F.2d 924; 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2885; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 17395Docket: 84-1377

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit; October 24, 1984; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Trustees of Boston University appeal a decision wherein an arbitrator awarded merit and equity pay increases to three faculty members, arguing that the arbitrator exceeded his contractual authority. The district court's refusal to vacate these awards is also contested. The Boston University Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (the Union) cross-appeals, claiming the Trustees’ judicial review petition lacked merit and requests reimbursement for attorney fees incurred in defending against what they assert is a frivolous action.

The underlying facts are undisputed, stemming from a collective bargaining agreement that stipulates procedures for merit and equity increases. Article XVI of the agreement mandates that a faculty committee establish allocation guidelines, subject to dean approval. The process involves multiple review levels, concluding with the University's Provost, and includes provisions for grievance proceedings if faculty members are dissatisfied with awarded increases.

The appeal centers on four arbitrator decisions made during grievance procedures. The Trustees dispute the arbitrator's interpretation of his authority, asserting that he should have limited his review to procedural compliance instead of making independent judgments regarding merit and equity increases. However, the arbitrator contended that the agreement allowed him to exercise such judgment based on faculty-adopted guidelines. The monetary awards in question include a $4,000 equity increase for Professor Lawrence Wortzel and additional merit raises of $200 and $500 for Professors Chris Theodore and Eugene Green, respectively. The appellate court affirms the district court's ruling in favor of the arbitrator's decisions.

The Trustees contend that the arbitration awards stemmed from the arbitrator's incorrect interpretation of his authority under the collective bargaining agreement and lack evidentiary support. The district court emphasized that an arbitrator's interpretation warrants substantial deference, a principle affirmed by the Supreme Court in W.R. Grace v. Rubber Workers Local 759. Courts cannot overturn an arbitrator's decision merely because they believe their interpretation is superior. The arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement mandates that disputes are to be resolved by an arbitrator, and unless the decision does not derive from the agreement's essence, it must be enforced without merit review. To challenge the arbitrator's interpretation, the Trustees must demonstrate that it is irrational, fundamentally flawed, or based on a false premise. The court found that the Trustees failed to meet this burden. While the collective bargaining agreement is not entirely clear on certain issues, the court agreed with the arbitrator's interpretation as reasonable. The Trustees argued that the University, as an academic institution, would not relinquish ultimate authority over faculty salary and merit disputes, suggesting a need for a specialized interpretation of the contract in an academic context. However, the court found no precedent for such an interpretation and upheld the contract's explicit provisions for arbitration. The contract clearly specified which decisions were exempt from arbitration, and the language contradicts the Trustees' position. The district court's conclusion that the evidence supported the arbitration awards was also affirmed.

The defendant Union argues that the Trustees' appeal regarding arbitration awards is frivolous, asserting it stems from a mere disagreement over contract interpretation, which is within the arbitrator's purview. The Union cites case law indicating that a frivolous appeal could warrant attorney's fees. While acknowledging that the University framed its claim as challenging the arbitrator's authority, the document clarifies that the contract explicitly assigns disputes about contract interpretation to arbitration. The Union fails to recognize that a district court's decision regarding attorney's fees is only reviewable for abuse of discretion; thus, the court did not err in denying such fees. However, the court should have clarified the arbitrator's authority to eliminate any uncertainty for the University. Consequently, the appeal is deemed frivolous, allowing for the imposition of double costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. The decision is affirmed, with double costs awarded to the Union.