The Beacon Journal Publishing Company v. The Akron Newspaper Guild, Local Number 7
Docket: 96-3562
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; July 23, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Beacon Journal Publishing Company (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealing a district court decision that granted summary judgment in favor of Akron Newspaper Guild Local Number 7 (Defendant-Appellee), which upheld an arbitration award for the Union. The Beacon Journal contends that the arbitrator disregarded the collective bargaining agreement's explicit terms and improperly introduced new conditions.
The Beacon Journal, which publishes a daily newspaper in Akron, Ohio, has a collective bargaining agreement with the Union that covers approximately 150 non-supervisory editorial employees. The agreement includes provisions for arbitration of unresolved grievances. A specific dispute arose regarding vacation assignments under Article XIII, section 3 of the agreement, which states that the employer can assign vacations but must give preference to employees in seniority order.
Historically, the Beacon Journal has allowed employees to sign up for vacations based on seniority, with designated slots for each week, except during specific holidays and election weeks. The conflict emerged after the creation of new exempt supervisory positions in the 1989 and 1991 agreements. Although these supervisors were former union members and continued performing similar duties, the vacation assignment process remained unchanged, allowing them to sign up based on seniority alongside collective bargaining employees.
The court ultimately reversed the district court's summary judgment and vacated the arbitration award, finding that the arbitrator had overstepped by creating conditions not stipulated in the original agreement.
The Beacon Journal encountered issues ensuring that exempt supervisors did not take vacation simultaneously with exempt managers, as at least one supervisor needed to be present at all times. To resolve this, the company unilaterally allowed supervisors to schedule their vacations first, treating them similarly to other supervisory employees. This change took effect in 1993, resulting in supervisors’ vacation weeks being deducted from the available slots for bargaining unit employees, who had to schedule their vacations after the less senior supervisors. Although the parties settled the issue in 1993, they did not establish a policy for subsequent years.
In 1994, the Beacon Journal implemented the new vacation system again, leading to unresolved differences that prompted the Union to file a grievance. The grievance was denied by the Beacon Journal and escalated to arbitration. The arbitrator framed the key issue as whether the management had the right to alter vacation scheduling priorities for exempt supervisory positions. After a hearing, the arbitrator sustained the Union's grievance, clarifying that the supervisory employees were not part of the bargaining unit but still performed tasks similar to Guild members. The Union failed to present evidence of members altering vacation plans due to the management's new interpretation.
The arbitrator, finding the Union's grievance justified, created a solution where the new supervisors and Union employees shared a seniority pool for vacation selection and established a grievance procedure for affected employees. The Beacon Journal refused to comply with the arbitration award, leading to a lawsuit under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The district court enforced the arbitration award, and the Beacon Journal subsequently appealed. The appellate court reviews the district court's summary judgment de novo, although with a limited scope.
The Supreme Court emphasizes substantial deference to an arbitrator’s decision, as outlined in the Steelworkers' Trilogy. Courts must respect the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement because parties have agreed to resolve disputes through arbitration, not judicial review. Review is limited to determining if the arbitrator was "arguably construing or applying the contract" within their authority. An award is valid if it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement rather than reflecting the arbitrator's personal views. Courts do not assess the merits of the grievance or the equity of the claim, as this would undermine the arbitration process. However, if an arbitrator's award disregards the collective bargaining agreement, courts retain the authority to vacate it. An award is deemed to lack essence if it contradicts the agreement's express terms, imposes additional requirements, is not rationally supported by the agreement, or is based on general fairness rather than specific terms.
The arbitrator's award in this case was found to conflict with the collective bargaining agreement, as it imposed additional requirements not present in the contract and was not rationally supported by its terms. The district court's failure to vacate the award was deemed an error. The case drew parallels to Lourdes Hospital, where an arbitrator ruled against a hospital's scheduling authority despite the collective bargaining agreement allowing such power. In the current case, four supervisors were exempt from the agreement's vacation provisions, and the Beacon Journal retained exclusive scheduling rights, which it did not violate. The arbitrator's imposition of guidelines based on fairness rather than the contract's specific terms contradicted arbitration principles that require awards to derive their essence from the contract. The Union's argument for the award being based on unwritten past practices was rejected, as past practices should only clarify ambiguous terms, not introduce new ones to a clear agreement. Courts have consistently held that past practices cannot be used to reinterpret clear and unambiguous contract provisions.
The agreement terms indicate that the Beacon Journal maintained the right to unilaterally change its vacation policy, despite temporarily including four new supervisors with bargaining unit employees. The assertion that the Beacon Journal would be bound by a vacation policy it established contradicts the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator’s findings, stating that vacation and job assignment procedures have lacked clarity, further undermine the Union's position, as no established past practice was found. Consequently, the decision of the district court affirming the arbitration award is reversed, and the arbitrator's award is vacated. The Beacon Journal's policy included limitations on vacation sign-ups to ensure adequate staffing, and only the four supervisors were integrated into the Union's vacation scheduling process. The Union has not challenged the status of other exempt supervisors in relation to vacation scheduling. Courts are tasked with upholding the agreements made by the parties while striving for fairness and equity in such cases.
