Bell Aerospace Co. Div. Of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers Of Am. (Uaw), 500 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Bell Aerospace Co. Div. Of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, Int'l Union, United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers Of Am. (Uaw), 500 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“in handling evidence an arbitrator need not follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts. he need only grant the parties a fundamentally fair hearing.”
254 citation events (94 in the last 25 years) across 50 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner (connappct, 2006-02-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) All Seasons Services, Inc. v. Guildner (2×) also: Cited "see"
Conn. App. Ct. · 2006 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
onstruing ambiguous provisions of an arbitration award is the proper province of the arbitrator, not the courts
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Pompano-Windy City Partners, Ltd. v. Bear Stearns & Co. (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
S.D.N.Y. · 1992 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
that the arbitrator consistently relied on evidence and reached conclusions favorable to .... does not establish 'evident partiality
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Rhode Island D.O.H. v. Nat'l Assoc.
Sup. Ct. R.I. · 2008 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
in handling evidence an arbitrator need not follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts. he need only grant the parties a fundamentally fair hearing.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Standard Tankers (Bahamas) Co. v. Motor Tank Vessel, AKTI
E.D.N.C. · 1977 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
courts will not enforce an award that is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory
cited Cited as authority (rule) Evan K. Halperin Revocable Living Trust v. Charles Schwab & Co. Inc
S.D.N.Y. · 2022 · confidence medium
Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516 UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Golden Krust Franchising, Inc. v. Auctus Restaurant Group, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2021 · confidence medium
Union of Hosp. & Health Care Emp., RWDSU, AFL-CIO, 574 F.2d 723, 726 (2d Cir. 1978) (quoting Bell Aerospace, 500 F. 2d at 924) (internal citations omitted) (alterations in original).3 In Weiss, the Second Circuit vacated an arbitration award where it was “incoheren[t]” and “ignored and contradicted an unambiguous term of the agreement.” Weiss, 939 F.3d at 110–11.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Carlson
S.D. Tex. · 2020 · confidence medium
Towing, Inc., 607 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir. 1979) (quoting Bell Aerospace Co. v. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974)); see also Laws v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 452 F.3d 398, 399 (5th Cir. 2006) (“‘To constitute misconduct requiring vacatur of an award, an error in the arbitrator’s determination must be one that is not simply an error of law, but which so affects the rights of a party that it may be said that he was 4 deprived of a fair hearing.’” (quoting El Dorado Sch.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D.N.Y. · 2017 · confidence medium
An ADR panel “need not follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts,” see Bell Aerospace, 500 F.2d at 923, and, even in federal court, parties to civil disputes are not guaranteed an in-court oral argument.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Local 210 Warehouse & Production Employees Union v. Environmental Services, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
E.D.N.Y · 2016 · confidence medium
Under the FAA, an arbitrator “need not follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts,” Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 20 (2d Cir. 1997) (quoting Bell Aerospace, 500 F.2d at 923), but she still “must give each of the parties to the dispute an adequate opportunity to present its evidence and argument.” Id. (citing Hoteles Condado Beach, La Concha & Convention Ctr. v. Union De Tronquistas Local 901, 763 F.2d 34, 39 (1st Cir. 1985)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Prince George's County v. Prince George's County Police Civilian Employees Ass'n
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
In Downey , the Court of Appeals cited the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a commercial arbitration case, which stated: Although judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrowly limited, DiapulseCorporation of America v. Carba, Ltd., 626 F.2d 1108, 1110 (2d Cir.1980), a court should not attempt to enforce an award that is ambiguous or indefinite, id. at 1111 ; Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) P.G. Co. v. Police Civilian Emp.
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
In Downey, the Court of Appeals cited the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a commercial arbitration case, which stated: Although judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrowly limited, Diapulse Corporation of America v. Carba, Ltd., 626 F.2d 1108, 1110 (2d Cir.1980), a court should not attempt to enforce an award that is ambiguous or indefinite, id. at 1111 ; Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ABF Freight System, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters
8th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
See generally Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 494 F.2d 726, 740 (3d Cir.1974) (approving district court’s fashioning a procedure to choose an umpire after the parties failed to agree on one); Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 924-25 (2d-Cir.1974) (reversing district court’s confirmation of an arbitration award and instructing that on remand, if the parties did not agree on an arbitrator, the district court must appoint one). 2 Here, the district court cannot appoint a new tribunal because the rules provide a solution.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NYP Holdings, Inc. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · confidence medium
Co. v. Seagull Compania Naviera, S.A., 774 F.2d 64 , 67 (2d Cir.1985) (“An ambiguous award should be remanded to the arbitrators so that the court will know exactly what it is being asked to enforce.”); Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, Int’l Union, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974) (“Courts will not enforce an award that is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lessin, Michael v. Merrill Lynch Pierce
D.C. Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
In considering this contention, the court is mindful of the fact that “[i]n making evidentiary determinations, an arbitrator ‘need not follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts.’ ” Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 20 (2d Cir.1997) (quoting Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Weber v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith, Inc.
N.D. Tex. · 2006 · confidence medium
“Even repeated rulings against one party to the arbitration will not establish bias absent some evidence of improper motivation.” Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local Union #420 v. Kinney Air Conditioning Co., 756 F.2d 742, 746 (9th Cir.1985) (citing Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, Int’l Union, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Positive Productions
S.D.N.Y. · 2005 · confidence medium
Nov.4, 1996) (quoting Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Polin v. Kellwood Co.
S.D.N.Y. · 2000 · confidence medium
Arbitrators are not required to “follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts.” Bell Aerospace, 500 F.2d at 923.
examined Cited as authority (rule) LLT International Inc. v. MCI Telecommunications Corp. (3×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1998 · confidence medium
Baer, Inc. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union No. 580, etc., 813 F.2d 562, 565 (2d Cir.1987) (citing Bell Aerospace, 500 F.2d at 923)); see Cook Chocolate, 748 F.Supp. at 127 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reeves Bros., Inc. v. Capital-Mercury Shirt Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1997 · confidence medium
Baer, Inc. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union No. 580, etc., 813 F.2d 562, 565 (2d Cir.1987) (citing Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, International Union, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hayne, Miller & Farni, Inc. v. Flume
E.D. Wis. · 1995 · confidence medium
“In handling evidence an arbitrator need not follow all of the niceties observed by the federal courts.” Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fine v. Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · confidence medium
Id. at 923.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Roche v. Local 32B-32J Service Employees International Union
S.D.N.Y. · 1991 · confidence medium
In the instant case, plaintiff received a “fundamentally fair hearing.” See Bell Aerospace, supra, 500 F.2d at 923.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Boston Celtics Limited Partnership v. Brian Shaw
1st Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
We do not find such an argument “implausible,” see Crafts Precision, 889 F.2d at 1185 ; see also Misco, 484 U.S. 29, 38 , 108 S.Ct. 364, 371 , 98 L.Ed.2d 286 ; and, given the need for a quick decision, the. parties’ agreement (in their contract) to obtain quick decisions through expedited arbitration proceedings, and the absence of any showing of substantial prejudice to Shaw, we do not see how one could characterize the notice to Shaw as “fundamentally unfair.” See Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. North American Towing, Inc., 607 F.2d 649, 651 (5th Cir.1979) (“[A]n arbitrator ‘…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Raytheon Company v. Automated Business Systems, Inc.
1st Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
While it is true that in one of the cases the Fifth Circuit did vacate an arbi-tral award on the ground that a party to the arbitration had failed to receive a “ ‘fundamentally fair hearing,’ ” Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. North American Towing, 607 F.2d 649, 661 (6th Cir.1979) (quoting Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974)), the Totem Marine situation is far different from that before us here.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sunshine Mining Company v. United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Clc and Local 5089, United Steelworkers of America (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
As the district court recognized, an arbitrator "need only grant the parties a fundamentally fair hearing." Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) O & G/O'Connell Joint Venture v. Chase Family Ltd. Partnership No. 3
Conn. · 1987 · confidence medium
Grahams Service, Inc. v. Teamsters Local 975, 700 F.2d 420, 422 (8th Cir. 1982); Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, supra, 923; Newark Stereotypers’ Union No. 18 v. Newark Morning Ledger Co., supra; Fairchild & Co. v. Richmond, R. & P. R.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Americas Insurance Company v. Seagull Compania Naviera, S.A.
2d Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
The lapse of the letter of credit, combined with Universal's bankruptcy, is what makes it so important to determine whether the arbitrators intended there to be a setoff against Americas' claim. 8 Although judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrowly limited, Diapulse Corporation of America v. Carba, Ltd., 626 F.2d 1108, 1110 (2d Cir.1980), a court should not attempt to enforce an award that is ambiguous or indefinite, id. at 1111 ; Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Americas Insurance v. Seagull Compania Naviera, S.A.
2d Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Although judicial review of an arbitration award is very narrowly limited, Diapulse Corporation of America v. Carba, Ltd., 626 F.2d 1108, 1110 (2d Cir.1980), a court should not attempt to enforce an award that is ambiguous or indefinite, id. at 1111 ; Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union 420 v. Kinney Air Conditioning Co. (2×)
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Co., 551 F.2d 136, 141-42 (7th Cir.1977); Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974); Sidarma Societa Italiana di Armamento Spa v. Holt Marine Industries, Inc., 515 F.Supp. 1302, 1306 (S.D.N.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Capital District Chapter v. International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, Local Union Nos. 201, 12 & 622
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, International Union, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974) (“Courts will not enforce an award that is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
2d Cir. · 1984 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, International Union, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974) ("Courts will not enforce an award that is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory.").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Laborers' International Union of North America, Local Union No. 309, Afl-Cio v. W. W. Bennett Construction Company, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
See Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. IBEW, Local 2294, 600 F.2d 219, 225-26 (9th Cir. 1979) (dicta); Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974); Window Glass Cutters League v. American St.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Teamsters Local Union No. 533 v. Herbert Fuel Oil & Trucking Co.
E.D.N.Y · 1982 · confidence medium
United Mine Workers v. Consolidation Coal Co., 666 F.2d 806 (3rd Cir. 1981); Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, International Union, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United Mine Workers of America District No. 5 v. Consolidation Coal Company (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
Accord, e.g., Locals 2222, 2320 —2327, IBEW v. New England Telephone and Telegraph Co., 628 F.2d 644, 647 (1st Cir. 1980); Hart v. Overseas National Airways, Inc., 541 F.2d 386, 392 (3d Cir. 1976); Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974); Electrical Contractors Association of Greater Boston v. Local Union 103, IBEW, 458 F.2d 590, 593 (1st Cir. 1972); International Association of Machinists v. Crown Cork and Seal Co., 300 F.2d 127 (3d Cir. 1962).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Refino v. Feuer Transportation, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · confidence medium
Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reichman v. Creative Real Estate Consultants, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · confidence medium
Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 92-3 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Leeds & Northrup Co.
E.D. Pa. · 1979 · confidence medium
See Chief Freight Lines Co. v. Local 886, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 514 F.2d 572, 579 (10th Cir. 1975); Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974); San Antonio Newspaper Guild v. San Antonio Light Division, 481 F.2d 821, 824-25 (5th Cir. 1973); Local 369, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Olin Corp., 471 F.2d 468, 472 (6th Cir. 1972); United Steelworkers v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 324 F.2d 738, 740 (6th Cir. 1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kallen v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees (2×)
2d Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
We there characterized an arbitration award as not only “ambiguous” but “contradictory on its face,” id. at 923-24; we also noted that “[n]one of the parties has advanced a clear and compelling interpretation of the award.” Id. at 924.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Herbert Kallen v. District 1199, National Union Of Hospital And Health Care Employees, Rwdsu, Afl-Cio (2×)
2d Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
We there characterized an arbitration award as not only "ambiguous" but " contradictory on its face," id. at 923-24; we also noted that "(n)one of the parties has advanced a clear and compelling interpretation of the award." Id. at 924.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United Mine Workers of America, District No. 2, and United Mine Workers of America, Local No. 1269 v. Barnes & Tucker Co (2×)
3rd Cir. · 1977 · confidence medium
See Chief Freight Lines Co. v. Local 886, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 514 F.2d 572, 579 (10th Cir. 1975); Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974); San Antonio Newspaper Guild v. San Antonio Light Division, 481 F.2d 821, 824-25 (5th Cir. 1973); Local 369, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Olin Corp., 471 F.2d 468, 472 (6th Cir. 1972); United Steelworkers v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 324 F.2d 738, 740 (6th Cir. 1963). 1 We believe that the settlement agreements in this case are too uncertain in their effect to be granted enforcement.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Seaboard World Airlines, Inc. v. Air Transport Division, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL/CIO
E.D.N.Y · 1977 · confidence medium
“Courts will not enforce an award that is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory.” Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2 Cir. 1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Hugh Hart v. Overseas National Airways Inc
3rd Cir. · 1976 · confidence medium
U. Etc., supra at 924-25.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Journal Times v. Milwaukee Typographical Union No. 23
E.D. Wis. · 1976 · confidence medium
Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, UAW, 356 F.Supp. 354 (D.C.), aff’d, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir. 1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Makress Lingerie, Inc. v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union
S.D.N.Y. · 1975 · confidence medium
But, at least in this Circuit, the time has long since passed for an argument that the United States Arbitration Act is inapplicable to labor arbitration cases, at least so long as the unions are not “actually in the transportation industries.” Signal-Stat Corp. v. Local 475, United Electrical Workers, 235 F.2d 298, 302 (2d Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 911 , 77 S.Ct. 1293 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1428 (1957); International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. General Electric Co., 406 F.2d 1046, 1049-50 (2d Cir. 1969); Bell Aerospace Co. Division of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, …
cited Cited "see" The Trustees of the New York State Nurses Association Pension Plan v. White Oak Global Advisors, LLC
S.D.N.Y. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bell Aerospace Co. v. Local 516, Int’l United Auto., 500 F.2d 921 , 923 (2d Cir.1974).
discussed Cited "see" TiVo Inc. v. Goldwasser
2d Cir. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron v. Local 516, 500 F.2d 921 , 923 (2d Cir.1974) ("In handling evidence an arbitrator need not follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts.”); accord Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d at 21 .
discussed Cited "see" Talel Corp. v. Shimonovitch
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921 , 923 (2nd Cir.1974); cf. Nat’l Airlines Inc. v. Metcalf, 114 So.2d 229, 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (agreement to arbitrate disputes under collective-bargaining agreement does not preclude review by the courts of procedural due process and jurisdictional limitations).
discussed Cited "see" T. CO METALS, LLC v. Dempsey Pipe & Supply, Inc.
2d Cir. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, Int’l Union, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2d Cir.1974) (“Courts will not enforce an award that is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory.”); see also Trade & Transp., Inc., 931 F.2d at 195 (noting “the general rule that an arbitral determination is not final unless it conclusively decides every point required by and included in the submission of the parties”); cf. 9 U.S.C. § 10 (a)(4) (permitting award to be vacated where arbitrators “so imperfectly executed the[ir powers] that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subj…
discussed Cited "see" Fairchild Corp. v. Alcoa, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16, 20 (2d Cir.1997) (noting that arbitration “ ‘need not follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts’ ”) (quoting Bell Aerospace Co. Div. of Textron v. Local 516, 500 F.2d 921 , 923 (2d Cir.1974)).
discussed Cited "see" At & T Corp. v. Tyco Telecommunications (U.S.) Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
However, the misconduct must amount to a denial of fundamental fairness of the arbitration proceeding to warrant vacating the award.” Areca, Inc. v. Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., 960 F.Supp. 52, 55 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (citations omitted; internal quotations omitted); see Textron, Inc. v. Local 516, UAW, 500 F.2d 921, 923 (2nd Cir.1988); see also Halligan v. Piper Jaffray, Inc., 148 F.3d 197 , 204 (2nd Cir.1998).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Bell Aerospace Company Division of Textron, Inc.
v.
Local 516, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (Uaw), Niagara Frontier Technical Association, Local 205, American Federation of Technical Engineers
1161.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jul 26, 1974.
500 F.2d 921
Cited by 55 opinions  |  Published
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #33,391 of 633,719
Citer courts: Second Circuit (1) · E.D. North Carolina (1) · Superior Court of Rhode Island (1)

500 F.2d 921

86 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3240, 74 Lab.Cas. P 10,222

BELL AEROSPACE COMPANY DIVISION OF TEXTRON, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LOCAL 516, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW),
Defendant-Appellee, Niagara Frontier Technical Association,
Local 205, American Federation of Technical Engineers,
Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 1160, 1161, Dockets 73-1487, 74-1135.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued June 12, 1974.
Decided July 26, 1974.

Richard E. Moot, Buffalo, N.Y. (Mason O. Damon, James N. Schmit, and Ohlin, Damon, Morey, Sawyer & Moot, Buffalo, N.Y., on the brief), for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard Lipsitz, Buffalo, N.Y. (Eugene W. Salisbury and Lipsitz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Schuller & James, Buffalo, N.Y., on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Thomas P. McMahon, Buffalo, N.Y., for defendant-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, HAYS and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.

HAYS, Circuit Judge:

[*~921]1

This is an appeal by two parties from a judgment of the district court confirming an arbitration award in a jurisdictional dispute among an employer and two unions over assignment of jobs in the employer's plant. Local 516, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), defends the award and judgment of the district court in all respects. Niagara Frontier Technical Association, Local 205, American Federation of Technical Engineers, appeals on the ground that the arbitrator exceeded his powers, denied Local 205 a fair hearing, and acted with evident partiality. We hold that these claims lack merit and to that extent we affirm the decision of the district court. The employer, Bell Aerospace Company, appeals on the ground that the award was ambiguous and contradictory and should have been remanded for clarification. We find this claim justified and to that extent we reverse and remand.

I.

2

In September and October 1970 Local 516 filed two grievances claiming that jobs properly belonging to its members under its collective bargaining agreement with Bell had been assigned to members of Local 205. Bell tried but failed to obtain a Unit Clarification Order from the National Labor Relations Board. Bell then filed a grievance against Local 205 and demanded arbitration. On July 30, 1971, Bell filed in the district court a complaint against both unions under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 185 (1970), and sought an order to compel tripartite arbitration. On August 5, 1971, the court preliminarily enjoined further arbitration proceedings until it could dispose of Bell's complaint. On January 12, 1972, acting pursuant to 9 U.S.C. 4 (1970), the district court ordered that all grievances be heard in a single proceeding before an arbitrator.

3

After conducting hearings and receiving exhibits and briefs the arbitrator issued his award on January 30, 1973. Local 205 petitioned the district court to vacate the award and Local 516 moved to confirm the award. On March 14, 1973, the court granted the motion of Local 516. On April 17, 1973, Local 205 moved to vacate the award on the ground that the arbitrator had so imperfectly executed his powers that a final, definite award was not made. Bell cross moved on the same ground to have the award remanded to the arbitrator for clarification. On May 17, 1973, the district court granted Bell's motion.

4

On June 28, 1973, the arbitrator issued his clarification. Local 516 moved in the district court to confirm the award as clarified. Bell opposed the motion on the ground that the award was still ambiguous despite the clarification. The district court agreed that 'the language of the award appears to be contradictory.' Nevertheless the court confirmed the award on the ground that the arbitrator had done 'his best' and that there was 'no reason to believe that a remand would lead to any additional clarification.'

5

Bell and Local 205 appealed.

II.

6

Local 205 claims that the award must be vacated because the arbitrator exceeded his powers, denied a fair hearing, and showed partiality.

7

A federal court may vacate the award of an arbitrator only on the grounds specified in 9 U.S.C. 10 (1970). Local 205's first claim is that the arbitrator exceeded his powers within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. 10(d) by going beyond the scope of the collective bargaining agreement between Bell and 205 and considering the certification of Local 516. In Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. American Recording and Broadcasting Ass'n, 414 F.2d 1326 (2d Cir. 1969), this court held relying on Transportation-Communication Employees Union v. Union Pacific R.R., 385 U.S. 157, 161, 87 S.Ct. 369, 17 L.Ed.2d 264 (1966), that the developing common law of labor contracts permitted the district court to go beyond the scope of a collective bargaining agreement and compel tripartite arbitration. 414 F.2d at 1328-1329. To accept Local 205's argument would effectively nullify our former holding by preventing the arbitrator from referring to documents necessary to resolve the dispute. The collective bargaining agreements with both unions and the NLRB certification were relevant to the jurisdictional dispute here and the arbitrator did not exceed his powers by referring to all of them.[1]

[*921]8

3, 4$ Local 205 also claims that the arbitrator was guilty of 'misbehavior by which the rights of any party (may) have been prejudiced' within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. 10(c) by referring to an affidavit which was not placed in evidence. The district court found that the affidavit was part of the record in an NLRB case which the parties had stipulated was relevant. Moreover, Local 205 had notice of inclusion of the affidavit in the record through a letter from the attorney for Bell. In handling evidence an arbitrator need not follow all the niceties observed by the federal courts. He need only grant the parties a fundamentally fair hearing. Reliance on the affidavit did not deny Local 205 a fair hearing.

[*~923]9

Finally, Local 205 claims that the arbitrator was guilty of 'evident partiality' within the meaning of 9 U.S.C. 10(b). The only basis for the claim is that the arbitrator consistently relied on evidence and reached conclusions favorable to Local 516. This does not establish 'evident partiality.' There is no evidence that the arbitrator was biased or prejudiced, that he was predisposed to favor either party, or that he acted out of any improper motives. Cf. Saxis Steamship Co. v. Multifacs International Traders, Inc., 375 F.2d 577, 582 (2d Cir. 1967).

III.

10

Bell claims that because of the ambiguity of the award the arbitrator 'so imperfectly executed (his powers) that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.' 9 U.S.C. 10(d). The district judge accepted this argument the first time the case came before him and remanded the matter to the arbitrator for clarification. After clarification the court confirmed the award.

11

Courts will not enforce an award that is incomplete, ambiguous, or contradictory. United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960), modifying on other grounds, 269 F.2d 327, 331-332 (4th Cir. 1959); IBEW, Local 369 v. Olin Corp., 471 F.2d 468, 472-473 (6th Cir. 1972); Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council v. General Electric Co., 353 F.2d 302, 307-308 (9th Cir. 1965); United Steelworkers v. Timken Roller Bearing Co., 324 F.2d 738, 741 (6th Cir. 1963); IAM v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 300 F.2d 127 (3d Cir. 1962). In this case it appears that the award is ambiguous.

12

First, the award seems contradictory on its face. The question before the arbitrator is which union is to perform the calibration on the thousands of test instruments which require periodic calibration. The clarification of the award on remand reads in pertinent part as follows:

13

'1. Calibration

14

'The Award of January 30, 1973 disposed of 516's grievance 70-692 in the following language: All inspecting and testing, including associated calibrating, of deliverable products and/or products' components, including US2-28, VATLS, SMASH, DVM Accelerometers and PBPS shall be performed by employees represented by Local 516, UAW.

15

'This means employees represented by Local 516, UAW shall inspect, test and perform the calibration associated with such inspection and testing on all deliverable products and/or products' components, including US2-28, VATLS, SMASH, DVM, Accelerometers and PBPS. This does not mean that Local 516 has the right to perform all calibrating required by the Company. Nor does it mean 516 will be denied any calibration work performed by 516 prior to this arbitration.

16

'The Award of January 30, 1973 disposed of 516's item No. 10, grievance 70-716, in the following language: The calibration tests on all pneumatic, hydraulic, electro/mechanical and hydrostatic test instrumentation used for tests and the recording of tests shall be performed by employees represented by Local 205, AFTE.

17

'This means employees represented by Local 205, AFTE shall perform calibration tests on all pneumatic, hydraulic, electro/mechanical any hydrostatic test instrumentation used for tests and the recording of tests. This does not mean that Local 205 has 'the right to all calibration' required by the Company. Nor does it mean that 205 must sacrifice any of its work within the confines of its work jurisdiction as established by the National Labor Relations Board (Case 3-US-39) and discussed on page 156 of the Opinion.'

[*924]18

On the one hand, these jobs would seem to be 'associated with . . . testing,' and thus within the award to Local 516. On the other hand, they would seem to fall under 'calibration tests on . . . instrumentation used for tests,' and thus to be within the award to Local 205. Construing ambiguous provisions of an arbitration award is the proper province of the arbitrator, not the courts.

19

Bell claims, and Local 516 does not deny, that it has met with both unions and that they cannot agree on assignments under the award. Local 516 argues that the award grants to Local 205 calibration associated with research and development and to Local 516 all other calibration jobs. Perhaps this is what the arbitrator intended, but certainly one could not gather that interpretation from the face of the award. Moreover, that construction cannot stand because the clarification clearly states that 516 will not lose any work already assigned to it, but members of 516 have in the past been assigned to do calibration associated with research and development.

20

None of the parties has advanced a clear and compelling interpretation of the award.

21

The decision of the district court found that 'the language of the award appears to be contradictory.' Having so found, the court was bound to commit the matter to further arbitration. The purpose of arbitration is to resolve disputes, not to create new ones. An award which does not fulfill this purpose is unacceptable.

22

We therefore reverse that portion of the judgment of the district court which confirmed the award on calibration work and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

23

On remand the parties may, of course, select an arbitrator if they can agree among themselves. If they cannot agree, the district court must appoint the arbitrator. In view of the objections raised by Local 205 and the failure of the previous arbitrator to make a definite, unambiguous award even after the matter was remanded for clarification, it would be advisable for the district court to appoint a new arbitrator if the parties cannot agree.

1

It appears, moreover, that Local 205 conceded this point prior to arbitration, for the stipulation of facts entered into by the parties includes the certification as a document 'which may be relevant to the final determination of this action.'