E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Plaintiff-Counter v. Local 900 of the Int'l Chem. Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Defendant-Counter, 968 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1992). · Go Syfert
Search
E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., Plaintiff-Counter v. Local 900 of the Int'l Chem. Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Defendant-Counter, 968 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1992). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case · …draw its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, at p. 458 ✓
81 citation events (67 in the last 25 years) across 12 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) United Steel, Paper and Forest v. Delek Refining (6×) also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see, e.g."
5th Cir. · 2014 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
where an arbitrator implicitly finds that just cause exists, he need not recite the operative phrase 'just cause.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wheelock v. Kerr County (2×)
W.D. Tex. · 2025 · confidence medium
Smith, 968 F.2d at 456; Hutchings, 2022 WL 3716483 , at *1 (“The Tax Injunction Act bars the district court from considering Hutchings’ claims because the Act applies to municipal as well as state taxes, and Texas courts are more than capable of adjudicating his claims.”).* Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims against the Kerr County Defendants, it need not address their argument that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Comm Wrk of Amer v. Dex Media
5th Cir. · 2023 · confidence medium
Workers Union, AFL- CIO, 968 F.2d 456, 459 (5th Cir. 1992) (per curiam); Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 Marine Eng’rs Beneficial Ass’n, AFL-CIO, 889 F.2d 599, 601, 604 (5th Cir. 1989). 4 Case: 22-10371 Document: 00516734498 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/02/2023 No. 22-10371 determination of the employee’s qualifications. 2 In all four cases, then, the arbitrator “utterly contorted” the contract by acting “contrary to an express contractual provision.” Vantage Deepwater Co., 966 F.3d at 375 (quotation omitted).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mid Atlantic Capital v. Bien
10th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir. 1992) (remarking that arbitrator’s findings may be implicit).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Lake Charles Metal Trades Council
W.D. La. · 2016 · confidence medium
Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir.1992)(holding that the arbitrator implicitly found just cause when he concluded that the grievances had used marijuana on company premises); Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. Dist. 2 Marine Eng’rs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Houston Refining, L.P. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing (2×)
5th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir. 1992) (suit by employer to vacate arbitral award under § 301); N. New England Tel.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Albemarle Corp. v. United Steel Workers Ex Rel. Aowu Local 103
5th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Local 900 of the International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 968 F.2d 456 *823 (5th Cir.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) BNSF Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
5th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Apache Bohai Corp. LDC v. Texaco China BV
5th Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 459 (5th Cir.1992) (holding arbitrator exceeded authority where submission limited issue to finding proper cause); Am.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local 4-12
M.D. La. · 2005 · confidence medium
DuPont de Nemours and Co. v. Local 900 of the Int’l Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir.1992).
examined Cited as authority (rule) American Eagle Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n International (7×) also: Cited "see"
5th Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
DuPont de Nemours v. Local 900 of the Int'l Chemical Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir.1992).
cited Cited as authority (rule) American Eagle Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International
N.D. Tex. · 2002 · confidence medium
DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Local 900, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir.1992). 3 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weber Aircraft Inc v. Intl Brhd Teamsters
5th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir. 1992).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Marshall Durbin v. United Food & Cmercl
5th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir. 1992). 2 See id.; Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. Dist. 2 Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Ass'n, 889 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir. 1989); Container Products, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, 873 F.2d 818, 819-20 (5th Cir. 1989). 2
discussed Cited as authority (rule) IMC-Agrico Co. v. International Chemical Workers Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir.1992); Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass’n, AFLCIO, 889 F.2d 599 (5th Cir.1989); Morgan Serv. v. Local 328, Chicago & Central States, 724 F.2d 1217, 1221 (6th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Imc-Agrico Company v. International Chemical Workers Council Of The United Food And Commercial Workers Union
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir.1992); Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass'n, AFLCIO, 889 F.2d 599 (5th Cir.1989); Morgan Serv. v. Local 323, Chicago & Central States, 724 F.2d 1217, 1221 (6th Cir.1984). 14 But the cases cited by IMC-Agrico are distinguishable.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) IMC-Agrico Co. v. Int'l Chemical
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir. 1992); Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass’n, AFL- CIO, 889 F.2d 599 (5th Cir. 1989); Morgan Serv. v. Local 323, Chicago & Central States, 724 F.2d 1217, 1221 (6th Cir. 1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
E.I. DuPONT De NEMOURS AND COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,
v.
LOCAL 900 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Counter Plaintiff-Appellant
91-6335.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 4, 1992.
968 F.2d 456
Robert M. Young, Asst. Counsel, Int’l Chemical Workers Union, Akron, Ohio, Bruce Fickman, Houston, Tex., Louis Ro-bein, Metairie, La., for defendant-counter plaintiff-appellant., Raymond Michael Ripple, Sr., Legal Counsel, E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Wilmington, Del., for' plaintiff-counter defendant-appellee.
King, Davis, Wiener.
Cited by 32 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 88%
Citer courts: S.D. Texas (1)
PER CURIAM:

Local 900 of the International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO,, appeals from a judgment of the district court reversing a finding by an arbitrator as to the propriety of the discharge of two employees from a DuPont chemical plant under a collective bargaining agreement. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Two employees of E.I. DuPont de Nem-ours and Company (“DuPont”), James A. Davidson and Joseph S. David (“Griev-ants”), were discovered in a small shed on DuPont property in which a supervisor detected the odor of marijuana. Grievants voluntarily submitted to a drug test which proved positive. In February 1989, they were discharged for use of marijuana on company premises. Grievants filed grievances under Article VIII; Section 1 of a collective bargaining agreement (“Agreement”), which prohibited the discharge of employees except for “just cause.” Pursuant to Article VII, Section 2 of the Agreement, DuPont and Local 900 of the International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO (“Union”) executed a Submission Agreement, which permitted an arbitrator to determine if DuPont had indeed discharged Grievants for just cause. That same section of the Agreement provided that the decision of the arbitrator “shall be restricted to the issues specified in the Submission Agreement, ... provided the decision does[*458] not exceed the authority conferred by this Agreement on the Arbitrator.”

At the arbitration hearing on August 15, 1990, the parties stipulated that the issue to be determined by the arbitrator was limited to the following: “Were the Griev-ants discharged for just cause under the contract? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?” The arbitrator found that DuPont had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that Grievants had used marijuana on company premises. He determined, however, that while discharge was an available punishment, in this case it was inappropriate, and therefore ordered reinstatement, rehabilitative treatment, and followup drug testing.

On April 10, 1991, DuPont filed an action in federal district court for review of the arbitrator's award pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and on October 29, 1991, the district court granted DuPont’s motion. According to the district court, the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdictional authority when he found just cause to discharge the employees but nevertheless fashioned a remedy other than discharge. The issue as stipulated by the parties, reasoned the district court, gave the arbitrator authority to fashion a remedy only in the event he found no just cause. On November 18, 1991, the Union filed a timely notice of appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

An arbitrator’s award will not be disturbed if his decision “draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement,” and is not based on the arbitrator’s “own brand of industrial justice.” United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597, 80 S.Ct, 1358, 1361, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). Courts are free, however, “to scrutinize the award to ensure that the arbitrator acted in conformity with the jurisdictional prerequisites of the collective bargaining agreement.” Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. District 2 Marine Engineers Beneficial Ass’n, 889 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir.1989), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 148, 112 L.Ed.2d 114 (1990). If the court finds that the arbitrator exceeded the arbitral authority laid out in the agreement, then the district court’s action vacating the award is appropriate. Container Prods., Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, 873 F.2d 818, 820 (5th Cir.1989); Delta Queen, 889 F.2d at 602. We review the district court’s ruling that the arbitration award was not grounded on the agreement of the parties de novo. Id.; HMC Management Corp. v. Carpenters Dist. Council, 750 F.2d 1302, 1304 (5th Cir.1985).

The parties appear to agree that the discharge of Grievants was an available disciplinary action only if DuPont proved by clear and convincing evidence [1] that the employees used marijuana while on DuPont premises. [2] The arbitrator found that DuPont had proven by clear and convincing evidence that Grievants had indeed used marijuana on company premises. The arbitrator expanded upon this finding:

Unquestionably, the Company made it plain to its employees that using drugs on the Company premises was a discharge offense. Neither Grievant suggested that they were unaware of the potential consequences of what was, ultimately, a voluntary act.

While the arbitrator did not explicitly find that DuPont had just cause to discharge Grievants, the district court found that the language used by the arbitrator constituted an implicit finding of just cause. We agree. This court has held that where an arbitrator implicitly finds that just cause exists, he need not recite the operative phrase “just cause.” See Delta Queen, 889 F.2d at 604 (“proper cause”); Container Prods., 873 F.2d at 820 (“just cause”). In Delta Queen, we stated that

[*459] [t]he phrase carries no talismanic significance in labor jurisprudence. It is simply a term of art that defines the many unrelated, independent acts that serve as grounds for employee discipline under the agreement.

Id. We therefore agree with the district court that the arbitrator’s language with regard to Grievants’ use of marijuana on company premises constituted a finding of just cause.

The Submission Agreement provided to the arbitrator by the parties permitted the arbitrator “solely to determine whether the PLANT violated Article VIII, Section 1 of said Agreement by discharging [Grievants].... ” Article VIII, Section 1 of the Agreement provides that “[t]he PLANT agrees that no employee will be discharged ... except for just cause.” The Submission Agreement was silent as to the remedial authority of the arbitrator. However, at the commencement of the arbitration hearing, the parties provided the arbitrator with the following stipulated issue which specified his remedial powers:

Were the Grievants discharged for just cause under the contract? If not, what is the appropriate remedy?

The Union argues now, as it did before the district court, that the second sentence above empowers the arbitrator to fashion a remedy regardless of a finding of just cause for termination. The district court disagreed, reasoning that the stipulation gives the arbitrator remedial power only in the event that just cause is not shown.

Again, we agree with the reasoning of the district court. The plain, unambiguous language of the stipulation reveals that an “appropriate remedy” is only at issue if Grievants were discharged without just cause. The stipulation does not address any authority on the part of the arbitrator in the event just cause was shown by DuPont. Cf. Container Prods., 873 F.2d at 819 (affirming district court’s vacatur of arbitration award where arbitrator, who was empowered with remedial authority only in the event discharge was without just cause, fashioned remedy despite implicit finding of just cause). The Submission Agreement itself was silent as to the arbitrator’s remedial authority, and the stipulated issue was unambiguous as to the limits of this authority. Cf. Delta Queen, 889 F.2d at 604 (“arbitral action contrary to express contractual provisions will not be respected”). Accordingly, we hold that the district court’s determination that the arbitrator exceeded his authority was proper.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court, vacating the arbitration award, is AFFIRMED.

1

. The arbitrator settled upon the "clear and convincing" standard and the parties do not contest that standard.

2

. The parties agree that the Grievants had marijuana in their systems while on DuPont premises. This was also a rule violation, but not one sufficient to constitute just cause for discharge.