Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, and Wabash Federation v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

Citations: 307 F.3d 737; 171 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2032; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 21481; 2002 WL 31300092Docket: 01-3775EM

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; October 15, 2002; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (union) sought to enforce an arbitration award from Public Law Board No. 6086, which was established under the Railway Labor Act, against the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis (railroad). The District Court denied the union's motion and granted summary judgment for the railroad, claiming that the neutral member of the Public Law Board exceeded his authority by allowing the union to submit additional written arguments. 

The Eighth Circuit Court reversed the District Court's decision, concluding that the neutral member had the authority to interpret the arbitration agreement regarding the permissibility of the union’s additional submission. The Court determined that the neutral member's ruling was not erroneous enough to warrant judicial overturning. The arbitration award in favor of the union was reinstated.

The dispute arose from a collective bargaining agreement between the union and the railroad that had been unresolved for an extended period, prompting the union to request the National Mediation Board to appoint a Public Law Board. The arbitration agreement stipulated that the case file could not be altered, and any hearings would be based solely on the existing written record, with the neutral arbitrator empowered to request additional evidence as deemed necessary. The Board consisted of three arbitrators: one appointed by each party and a neutral arbitrator selected by the National Mediation Board, who ultimately decided the dispute.

On June 23, 1999, at an arbitration hearing, the union's arbitrator, Roy Robinson, submitted a document summarizing the union's legal arguments, which the railroad's arbitrator, Richard Finley, objected to as new material prohibited by their arbitration agreement. Neutral arbitrator Dana Eischen accepted the document despite the objection. A subsequent hearing on September 1, 1999, saw Robinson present another summary, which was again accepted by Eischen over Finley's objections. Finley did not submit a written summary for the railroad's position. Four months later, Robinson provided additional relevant NRAB decisions, which Finley also objected to.

The Public Law Board ruled in favor of the union on nine of fourteen claims, but the railroad did not comply with the award. The union sought enforcement from the District Court, which ruled for the railroad, claiming the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the submission of new materials. The union appealed, arguing that the Board did not violate its jurisdiction as defined by the arbitration agreement.

The court reviews the district court's summary judgment de novo and acknowledges that the review of the arbitration award is very limited. The primary issue for the appeal is whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction by accepting materials it deemed new. The jurisdiction is defined by the arbitration agreement, which prohibits adding or deleting material but does not clearly define these terms. The arbitrator had the authority to interpret ambiguous contractual language. In this case, the neutral arbitrator could reasonably interpret the agreement as allowing the acceptance of written summaries of legal arguments, which do not constitute new facts, and that such summaries do not violate the intent of the arbitration agreement. Additionally, the agreement allows the arbitrator to request more information from the parties, further justifying the acceptance of the union's materials.

The status of the memoranda submitted to the arbitrator was not explicitly defined in the agreement, leading to a procedural classification of the arbitrator's decision regarding their review. A court should only overturn an arbitrator's procedural determinations if there is evidence of misconduct or bad faith, neither of which was claimed in this case. Consequently, the arbitrator's finding that the submissions were not 'new material' and were subject to review is upheld. The railroad did not experience fundamental unfairness; the union's submissions were not ex parte, as the railroad was aware of them and objected to their inclusion. The railroad had the opportunity to counter the union's arguments but chose not to do so. The District Court's summary judgment for the railroad was reversed, and the case was remanded with instructions to enforce the arbitration award. Additionally, it was noted that the railroad's counsel acknowledged that the materials could have been read aloud during the proceedings.