Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Clerk of Court
No. 08-1442
(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-02025-WDM-BNB)
(D. Colo.)
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Workers, 461 F.3d 1195, 1197 (10th Cir. 2006)). Thus, so long as the
arbitrators decision concerns construction of the [CBA], the courts have no
business overruling [the arbitrator] because their interpretation of the [CBA]
differs. Local No. 7 United Food & Commercial Workers Intl Union v. King
Soopers, Inc., 222 F.3d 1223, 1226 (10th Cir. 2000).
Nonetheless, an arbitrator is confined to interpretation and
application of the collective bargaining agreement; he does not sit to
dispense his own brand of industrial justice, . . . . his award is
legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective
bargaining agreement.
Id. at 1227 (citation and quotation omitted). An award does not draw its essence
from the CBA where
it is contrary to the express language of the [CBA] . . . or . . . is so
unfounded in reason and fact, so unconnected with the working and
purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the
obligation of the arbitrator . . . . [or] if viewed in the light of its
language, its context, and any other indicia of the parties intention,
it is without factual support.
Id. (quotation omitted).
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case,
the district court detailed both, and we need not restate that material here. Having
reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to the
above-mentioned standards, we conclude that the Union has not shown any
reversible error in this case. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district
-3-
court for substantially the same reasons stated in its Order on Motions for
Summary Judgment filed October 15, 2008.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-