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
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1986 · …the violation of an express and explicit restriction on the arbitrator's power cannot be a plausible interpretation. at p. 1265 ✓
37 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1119, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff/counter v. United Markets, Inc., Defendant/counter-Plaintiff/appellant (ca9, 1986-03-18)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1119, Afl-Cio, Plaintiff/counter v. United Markets, Inc., Defendant/counter-Plaintiff/appellant (4×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
the violation of an express and explicit restriction on the arbitrator's power cannot be a plausible interpretation.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nikola Corporation v. Milton
D. Ariz. · 2024 · confidence medium
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 “disregard[] a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice.” 28 Id. (citing United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 , 1 597 (1960)); Aspic Eng’g & Constr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Caremark LLC v. AIDS Healthcare Foundation
D. Ariz. · 2022 · confidence medium
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.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Asarco, LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forest (4×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
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.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Asarco, LLC v. United Steel, Paper and Forest (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 2018 · confidence medium
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 of the no-add provision in this case, his award must be vacated. 2 Federated Empr’s, 600 F.2d at 1265.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Aspic Engineering & Construction Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors, LLC
N.D. Cal. · 2017 · confidence medium
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)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996,petitioner-Appellant v. United Parcel Service (2×)
9th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
See United Markets, 784 F.2d at 1415 (vacating arbitral award because the arbitrator did not attribute usual meaning to the words in the document); Pacific Motor Trucking Co. v. Automotive Machinists Union, 702 F.2d 176, 177 (9th Cir. 1983) (vacating arbitral award because "[t]he arbitrator disregarded a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice"); Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1264 (9th Cir. 1979) (vacating arbitral award that "plainly violated the terms of the arbitration clause").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996 v. United Parcel Service, Amended
9th Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
See United Markets, 784 F.2d at 1415 (vacating arbitral award because the arbitrator did not attribute usual meaning to the words in the document); Pacific Motor Trucking Co. v. Automotive Machinists Union, 702 F.2d 176, 177 (9th Cir.1983) (vacating arbi-tral award because “[t]he arbitrator disregarded a specific contract provision to correct what he perceived as an injustice”); Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1264 (9th Cir.1979) (vacating arbitral award that "plainly violated the terms of the arbitration clause”). 3 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McKesson Corp. v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, & Helpers Local Union No. 150
E.D. Cal. · 1991 · confidence medium
The arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement An arbitrator’s decision draws its essence from the agreement if his interpretation is “plausible.” Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1264 (9th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Safeway Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union
D.D.C. · 1985 · confidence medium
Davis v. Chevy Chase Financial Limited, 667 F.2d at 166 (citing Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1264 (9th Cir.1979)). “‘[Courts] must resist the temptation to reason out a la judges the arbiter’s award to see if it passes muster.’ ” Alhambra Foundry Company v. General Warehousemen’s Union, Local 598, 687 F.2d 287, 289 (9th Cir.1982) (citation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pacific Motor Trucking Co., Plaintiff-Cross-Defendant-Appellee v. Automotive MacHinists Union, Defendant-Cross-Complainant-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
An award that conflicts directly with the contract cannot be a “plausible interpretation.” Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hecla Mining Co. v. Bunker Hill Co.
Idaho · 1980 · confidence medium
Blaine Anderson, “The violation of an express and explicit restriction on the arbitrator’s power cannot be a plausible interpretation.” Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir. 1979).
cited Cited "see" Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Electronic & Space Technicians, Local 1553
9th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1979).
cited Cited "see" Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Electronic & Space Technicians, Local 1553
9th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1979).
cited Cited "see" Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Electronic & Space Technicians, Local 1553
9th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1979).
cited Cited "see" Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Electronic & Space Technicians, Local 1553
9th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Federated Employers of Nevada, Inc. v. Teamsters Local No. 631, 600 F.2d 1263, 1265 (9th Cir.1979).
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
77-2060.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jul 11, 1979.
600 F.2d 1263
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

600 F.2d 1263

101 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2838, 86 Lab.Cas. P 11,416

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., Petitioners-Appellants,
v.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 631, affiliated with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
& Helpers of America, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 77-2060.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

July 11, 1979.

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.

Appeal from Judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

Before CHOY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and BARTELS,[*] District Judge.

J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

[*~1263]1

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.

2

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:

3

"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."

4

The Union's final offer was "67cents 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.

5

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.

6

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.

[*~1264]7

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).

8

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 or compromise in any fashion." Compare Holly Sugar Corp. v. Distillery, Rectifying, Wine & Allied Workers, 412 F.2d 899 (CA9 1969).

[*1265]9

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.

[*~1264]10

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded with instructions to vacate the arbitrator's award.

11

The parties shall bear their own costs on this appeal.

*

The Honorable John R. Bartels, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation