Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
37 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 1119, Afl-Cio v. United Markets, Inc., 784 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1986)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1265 Arbitrator's award violating express contractual restrictions12 citing cases“the violation of an express and explicit restriction on the arbitrator's power cannot be a plausible interpretation.”2 citing courts quote it · 10 listed here
  • United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 1119, Afl-Cio v. United Markets, Inc., 784 F.2d 1413 (9th Cir. 1986).published 4 cites
    (The violation of an express and explicit restriction on the arbitrator's power cannot be a plausible interpretation.)
  • Nikola Corp. v. Milton, No. 2:23-cv-02635 (D. Ariz. Sept. 9, 2024).
    Motor Trucking, 702 F.2d at 177 (quoting Federated Employers of 25 Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No., 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir. 1979)). 26 “Although an arbitrator has great freedom in determining an award, he may not” 27 “disreg…
  • Caremark LLC v. AIDS Healthcare Found., No. 2:21-cv-01913 (D. Ariz. Sept. 15, 2022).
    Motor 25 Trucking, 702 F.2d at 177 (quoting Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters 26 Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir. 1979)). 27 III.
  • Asarco, LLC v. United Steel, 910 F.3d 485 (9th Cir. 2018).published 4 cites
    A court may not enforce an arbitration award if it does not “draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.” Federated Emp’rs, 600 F.2d at 1264.
  • Asarco, LLC v. United Steel, 893 F.3d 621 (9th Cir. 2018).published 2 cites
    Because under our precedent the arbitrator’s modification was contrary to the no-add provision and is therefore not a “plausible interpretation” of the contract, and because there is no basis for deferring to the arbitrator’s construction…
  • Aspic Eng'g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC, 268 F. Supp. 3d 1053 (N.D. Cal. 2017).published
    Motor Trucking, 702 F.2d at 177 (quoting Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir. 1979)).
  • Pac. Motor Trucking Co. v. Auto. MacHinists Union, 702 F.2d 176 (9th Cir. 1983).published
    “plausible interpretation”
  • Hecla Mining Co. v. Bunker Hill Co., 617 P.2d 861 (Idaho 1980).published
    “The violation of an express and explicit restriction on the arbitrator’s power cannot be a plausible interpretation”
  • Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Elec. & Space Technicians, Local 1553, 822 F.2d 823 (9th Cir. 1987).published 2 cites
    See Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1979).
  • Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Elec. & Space Technicians, Local 1553, 809 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir. 1987).published 2 cites
    See Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1979).
At page 1264 Determining if award draws essence from agreement5 citing casesvacating arbitral award that "plainly violated the terms of the arbitration clause2 citing courts put it this way
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FEDERATED EMPLOYERS OF NEVADA, INC., Home Lumber Company of Nevada, Henderson Builders Supply, L & H Builders Supply Company, Oneill Lumber Company, Van's Builders Supply, Inc., Ed Von Tobel Lumber Company and Toto Purchasing & Supply Co.
v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 631, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America
No. 77-2060.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 11, 1979.
Published opinion
600 F.2d 1263
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 13293
Brian L. Rexon, Stephen A. Mazurak (argued), Rexon & Mazurak, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioners-appellants., Joseph J. Kaplon (argued), Los Angeles, Cal., for respondents-appellees.
Anderson.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

A single issue is presented by this appeal: Does the arbitrator’s award draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement? We hold it does not and reverse.

The collective bargaining agreement, which the parties agree is valid, provides for arbitration of annual wage increases if an accord is not reached in negotiations. The arbitrator’s authority is narrow:

“The arbitrator shall be instructed by the parties that in issuing his findings he must select as his award either the last offer made by the Employers or the last offer made by the Union at the conclusion of negotiations as of the above anniversary dates with no modification or compromise in any fashion.”

The Union’s final offer was “67$ per hour wage package plus 7% interest on increase effective October 31, 1975.” October 31, 1975, was the date the prior wage package expired. The Employers’ final offer was 53 cents and no interest.

The arbitrator awarded an increase of 67 cents without interest. The Employers petitioned the district court to vacate the award, and the Union cross-petitioned for enforcement. The district court denied the petition to vacate and granted the petition to enforce. Neither the arbitration award nor the district court’s judgment explains the award.

On appeal the Employers contend that by deleting interest from the award, the arbitrator modified the Union’s final offer in violation of the bargaining agreement. We agree.

The judicial role in enforcement of arbitration awards is limited. If the award draws its essence from the bargaining agreement, enforcement is granted. United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). To determine whether the standard has been satisfied, this court simply asks: Is the arbitrator’s interpretation of the contract plausible? Aloha Motors, Inc. v. I. L. W. U. Local 142, 530 F.2d 848 (CA9 1976).

In awarding the Union’s requested hourly wage increase while denying its request for interest, the arbitrator plainly violated the terms of the arbitration clause. The instructions to the arbitrator are unambiguous and mandatory. To ensure that the parties’ intent is clearly understood, the clause explicitly directs the arbitrator to choose one proposal with “no modification[*1265] or compromise in any fashion. Compare Holly Sugar Corp. v. Distillery, Rectifying, Wine & Allied Workers, 412 F.2d 899 (CA9 1969).

The Union has offered no plausible rationale for reconciling the modified award with the express restrictions on the arbitrator’s power. The violation of an express and explicit restriction on the arbitrator’s power cannot be a plausible interpretation. The language serves a specific purpose: to negate the inference that the arbitrator may compromise the wage proposals and thereby resolve the wage dispute with his own brand of equity. The general arbitration clause in the same bargaining agreement does not include any special language limiting the arbitrator’s authority. This contrast demonstrates that the arbitrator ignored the essence of the agreement in making the award.

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to vacate the arbitrator’s award,

The parties shall bear their own costs on this appeal.