Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United Transportation Union Bedell Gray, (Two Cases)
Docket: 93-2119, 93-2621
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; May 6, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Union Pacific Railroad Company appeals a district court's summary judgment favoring the United Transportation Union and Bedell Gray, along with the confirmation of an arbitration award in Gray's favor. Union Pacific argues that the Public Law Board exceeded its jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act in its decision and that the court incorrectly determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the award based on public policy. The Eighth Circuit Court reverses the district court's decision and remands for further proceedings.
Bedell Gray, a brakeman for Union Pacific, tested positive for cocaine following a random drug test on October 24, 1990. He was subsequently withheld from service pending an investigation into an alleged violation of Union Pacific's drug policy. During the formal investigation on December 14, 1990, Gray was permitted only one representative despite his request for two, which he argued hindered his defense. Following the hearing, Union Pacific discharged Gray for violating its policies.
The union appealed, claiming Gray's right to proper representation was violated. The Public Law Board found the Discipline Agreement ambiguous regarding representation but noted that past practices allowed for more than one representative. The Board concluded that the hearing officer’s actions deprived Gray of adequate representation, concluding that the violation invalidated the discharge.
In remedying the situation, the Board ruled that while Union Pacific could not rely on the flawed investigation for Gray's discharge, it could not reinstate him without safeguards due to reasonable suspicions of drug use. The Board awarded Gray compensation for lost wages until he was offered participation in a rehabilitation program.
The Rule G R/E Program, outlined in the Companion Agreement between Union Pacific and the union, allows employees dismissed for Rule G violations to rehabilitate and return to service under specific conditions: a ten-year clean record, a ten-year gap since last Program participation, and no significant rule violations besides Rule G. Gray, who had participated in the Program within the last ten years, was allowed by the Board to participate again solely for this case, without setting a precedent.
Union Pacific sought judicial review of the arbitration award under 45 U.S.C. § 153, First (q), arguing the award contradicted public policy and exceeded the Board's jurisdiction. The union and Gray counterclaimed for enforcement under 45 U.S.C. § 153, First (p). The district court denied Union Pacific's motion and granted the union's and Gray's motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction to review the award based on public policy and that the Board's remedy was within its jurisdiction.
Judicial review of arbitration awards under the Railway Labor Act is limited to three grounds: failure to comply with the Act, exceeding the scope of jurisdiction, and fraud or corruption. Union Pacific contended the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering Gray's participation in the Program and awarding him backpay, arguing this conflicted with the Companion Agreement.
Public law board awards are generally enforceable unless deemed "without foundation in reason or fact." The agreement must be interpreted broadly, resolving doubts in favor of the Board's award. Ambiguities in the award's accompanying opinion typically do not preclude enforcement. The jurisdiction test assesses whether the Board's remedy serves the aims of the contract, not whether the court agrees with the Board's interpretation.
The Board acted within its jurisdiction in addressing the case, as outlined in the Discipline Agreement which mandates fair investigations prior to employee dismissal. The Board found that Gray was not afforded a fair investigation, leading to his improper dismissal. Consequently, the Board's decision included his reinstatement and backpay, conditioned on his participation in the Rule G R/E Program. Despite Gray's prior participation in the Program, the Board interpreted the Companion Agreement's restriction on repeated participation as applicable only to those who were properly dismissed. This interpretation was deemed reasonable and aligned with the contract's objectives.
Union Pacific contested the district court's ruling on its lack of jurisdiction to review the award based on public policy. The court's earlier decision in Union Pacific R.R. v. United Transp. Union established that federal courts can vacate arbitration awards under the Railway Labor Act if they conflict with significant public policies, particularly regarding the employment of individuals whose substance abuse may endanger public safety. The determination of whether the current award violates public policy is assigned to the district court for initial consideration.
The district court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in accordance with these findings. Additionally, Union Pacific's objection to the district court's attorney's fees award is acknowledged, reinforcing that the Railway Labor Act mandates such fees for the prevailing party in enforcement suits. The court may need to reassess the attorney's fees award based on the outcome of the remand proceedings.
