10.2190/0TRV-W99U-39H9-D2F3 0TRVW99U39H9D2F3 223 ARBITRAL FINALITY: THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION OF THE PUBLIC POLICY EXCEPTION 223 244 20040922 20040922 20040922 20040922 0TRVW99U39H9D2F3.pdf http://baywood.metapress.com/link.asp?target=contribution&id=0TRVW99U39H9D2F3 3 KATHLEEN L. PERELES EDWARD A. PERELES Rowan University, Glassboro, New Jersey Arbitrator/Mediator, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Since the decisions in the Trilogy cases were handed down by the Supreme Court on June 23, 1960, the dominant policy of the courts has been to defer to the decision of the arbitrator and uphold the arbitration award. However, there have always been reasons for judicial review of arbitration rewards; and, in some cases, reasons to vacate or overturn an award. This article focuses on the interpretation and status of a rationale often used by the courts when overturning or vacating an arbitration award: the public policy exception. We present the current interpretation of the public policy exception in the unionized segment of the private sector and the historical evolution of the exception, and we focus on strategies for both parties (employers and unions) to either use or defend against the public policy exception. Exxon Corp. v. Esso Workers' Union, Inc., 118 F 3d 841 (1997). B. S. Murphy, W. E. Barlow, and D. D. Hatch, Sexual Harassment: A Public Policy Issue, Personnel Journal, 72:3, p. 220, 1993. Iowa Electric Light & Power Co. v. Electrical Workers Local 204, 834 F 2d 1424 (Eighth Circuit, 1987). Northwest Airlines v. Airline Pilots Association International, 808 F 2d 76 (D.C. Circuit, 1987); cert denied 486 U.S. 1014, 1988. Delta Airlines v. Airline Pilots Association International, 861 F 2d 665 (Eleventh Circuit, 1988); certiorari denied 110 S. Ct. 201 (1980). C. J. Coleman and G. C. Coleman, Constructing a New Paradigm of Labor Arbitration, Dispute Resolution Journal, 51:4, pp. 34-47, 1996. Communications Workers of America v. Southeastern Electric Cooperative, 882 F 2d 467 (Tenth Circuit, 1989). T. J. Piskorski, Reinstatement of the Sexual Harasser: The Conflict between Federal Labor Law and Title VII, Employee Relations Law Journal, 18:4, pp. 617-624, 1993. Newsday, Inc. v. Long Island Typographical Union, Number 915, 915 F 2d 840 (Second Circuit, 1990); cert denied 111 S. Ct. 1314 (1991). Ottley v. Sheepshead Nursing Home, 688 F 2d 883 (Second Circuit, 1982). Arbitration Cases a Focus of Supreme Court, Dispute Resolution Journal, 55:4, p. 4, November 2000-January 2001. B. S. Murphy, W. E. Barlow, and D. D. Hatch, Manager's Newsfront, Personnel Journal, 67:2, p. 30, 1988. F. Swoboda, New Precedent on Sexual Harassment, The Washington Post, p. H3, October 21, 1990. Stead Motors v. Automotive Machinists Lodge 1173, 915 F 2d 840 (Second Circuit, 1990). Stroehman Bakeries Inc. v. Local 776, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 969 F 2d 1436 (Third Circuit, 1992); certiorari denied 506 U.S. 1022 (1992). J. P. Schaudies, Jr. and C. S. Miller, The Critical Role of a Judicially Recognized Public Policy Against Illegal Drug Use in the Workplace, Industrial Relations Law Journal, 12:1, pp. 153-184, 1990. United Steelworkers of America v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960). United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960). United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960). B. F. Ashe, Arbitration Finality and the Public Policy Exception, Dispute Resolution Journal, 49:3, pp. 22-34, 1994. Interstate Brands Corporation v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers Local Number 135, 909 F 2d 885 (Sixth Circuit, 1990). Exxon Shipping Co. v. Exxon Seamen's Union, 11 F 3d 1189 (Third Circuit, 1993). Review of Court Decisions, Dispute Resolution Journal, 49:3, p. 97, 1994. Chrysler Motor Corp. v. Local 793, International Union of Allied Industrial Workers of America, 959 F 2d 685 (Seventh Circuit, 1992); certiorari denied 113 S. Ct. 304 (1992). B. F. Randall, The History, Application, and Policy of the Judicially Created Standards of Review for Arbitration Awards, Brigham Young University Law Review, 3, pp. 759-784, 1992. D. J. Mouser, Analysis of the Public Policy Exception After Paperworkers v. Misco: A Proposal to Limit the Public Policy Exception and to Allow the Parties to Submit the Public Policy Question to the Arbitrator, Industrial Relations Law Journal, 12:1, pp. 89-153, 1990. D. J. Mouser, Combating Employee Drug Use Under a Narrow Public Policy Exception, Industrial Relations Lawn Journal, 12:1, pp. 184-197, 1990. B. D. Meltzer, After the Labor Arbitration Award: The Public Policy Defense, Industrial Relations Law Journal, 10:2, pp. 241-258, 1988. B. F. Ashe, Arbitration Finality: Myth or Reality? The Arbitration Journal, 38:4, pp. 42-52, 1983. L. D. McGill, Public Policy Claims in Employee Termination Disputes, Employment Relations Today, 15:1, pp. 43-49, 1988. M. A. Robbins and N. Norwood, State Wrongful Discharge Law: Are Unionized Employees Covered? Employee Relations Law Journal, 12:1, pp. 19-33, 1986. J. H. Toole, Judicial Activism in Public Sector Grievance Arbitration: A Study of Recent Developments, The Arbitration Journal 33:3, pp. 6-15, 1978. City of Muschany v. U.S., 324 U.S. 49 (1945). M. H. LeRoy and P. Feuille, The Steelworkers Trilogy and Grievance Arbitration Appeals: How the Federal Courts Respond, Industrial Relations Law Journal, 13:1, pp. 78-121, 1991. A. F. Silbergeld, Supreme Court Enforces Arbitrator's Decision Reinstating Driver Who Tested Positive for Drug Use, Employment Relations Today, 28:1, pp. 93-99, 2001. H. T. Edwards, Judicial Review of Labor Arbitration Awards: The Clash between the Public Policy Exception and the Duty to Bargain, Chicago Kent Law Review, 64, pp. 3-34, 1988. Eastern Associated Coal Corporation v. United Mine Workers of America, District 17, 121 S. Ct. 462 (2000). United Paperworkers International Union v. Misco Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (1987). W. R. Grace v. Local Union Number 759 Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers, 461 U.S. 757 (1983). Kane Gas, LIght & Heating v. International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, Local 112, 687 F 2d 673 (Third Circuit, 1982); certiorari denied 51 L.W. 3663. Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen, Local 540 v. Great Western Food, 712 F 2d 122 (Fifth Circuit, 1983).