By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//June 21, 2013//
United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit
Civil
Labor — Railway Labor Act — arbitration
The arbitrator did not exceed his authority in holding that a new attendance policy did not conflict with an indefinite 1952 agreement.
“The arbitrator did not nullify Section 1 of the 1952 Agreement. He simply interpreted the agreement to mean something other than the meaning promoted by the union, and in doing so, he certainly interpreted its language. He quoted the relevant language from Section 1 and considered that language and meaning in the course of explaining his award. For example, the arbitrator found that Section 1’s reference to ‘thirty days’ must mean consecutive days (not total days); that Section 1’s reference to ‘sickness or injury’ means that leaves longer than thirty days for sickness or injury do not require the formal leave request procedure; and that ‘“permitted” is used to focus on the Carrier’s reserved judgment’ and as a ‘condition precedent’ to laying off, considering the grammatical effects of the term’s surrounding phrases. By looking to the meaning of specific words and phrases and determining those definitions based on surrounding language, the arbitrator interpreted the 1952 Agreement in his decision, even if the Union is unhappy with the result.”
Affirmed.
12-2913 Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Kennelly, J., Hamilton, J.