Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Riverboat Casino, Inc. v. Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas
Riverboat Casino, Inc. v. Loc. Joint Exec. Bd. of Las Vegas, 578 F.2d 250 (9th Cir. 1978)
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1978-07-10
- Topic
- general
How later courts describe this case
- rejecting argument that arbitrator was bound by prior award
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Riverboat Casino, Inc. v. Local Joint Executive Board of Las Vegas. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 14 opinions
RIVERBOAT CASINO, v. L. JOINT EXEC. BOARD,578 F.2d 250(9th Cir. 1978)
RIVERBOAT CASINO, INC., DBA HOLIDAY CASINO, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. LOCAL
JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS ET AL., RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES.
LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF LAS VEGAS ET AL., PETITIONERS-APPELLEES, v.
HOLIDAY CASINO, ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.
No. 77-2456.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 10, 1978.
Davis, Cowell Bowe, San Francisco, Cal., for respondents-appellees.
Before BROWNING and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and KUNZIG,fn*Judge, Court of Claims.
[2] Appellant argues that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by failing to defer to a previous "binding" arbitration award that interpreted the "good cause" provision of the same agreement in relation to excessive absenteeism and tardiness, though involving a different arbitrator, employer, and employee.
[3] The arbitrator was empowered to review the propriety of the discharge under the provision of the collective bargaining agreement that "no regular employee . . . shall be discharged except for just cause." Moreover, the agreement contemplated imposition of a suspension as a lesser disciplinaryPage 251penalty for employee misconduct. The arbitrator was cognizant of and took into consideration the prior arbitration award to which appellant referred, apparently distinguishing or disapproving the prior ruling. He resolved the dispute by considering the proper sources — the terms of the collective bargaining agreement and the "common law" of the industry.Anaconda Co. v. Great Falls MillSmeltermen's Union,402 F.2d 749, 751-52 (9th Cir. 1968).
[4] Judicial Review of arbitration awards is limited. An award is legitimate so long as it "draws its essence" from the collective bargaining agreement and does not "manifest an infidelity" to the agreement.United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise WheelCar Corp.,363 U.S. 593, 597-99, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). "[I]f, on its face, the award represents a plausible interpretation of the contract in the context of the parties' conduct, judicial inquiry ceases and the award must be affirmed."Holly Sugar Corp. v. Distillery Union,412 F.2d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 1969).
[5] The award in this case satisfies these criteria. We reject appellant's contention that the arbitrator was bound by the prior arbitration award. Absent a provision in the contract to the contrary, the arbitrator could reasonably conclude that strict adherence to stare decisis would impair the flexibility of the arbitral process contemplated by the parties. But even if the arbitrator were incorrect in this assessment of the parties' intent and erred in not following the prior arbitral award, we would not for that reason vacate the award.SeeWashington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild v. Washington Post Co.,143 U.S.App. D.C. 210, 215,442 F.2d 1234, 1239 (1971).
[6] The Union's request for costs and damages under Rule 38, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is denied.
[7] Affirmed.
- Honorable Robert L. Kunzig, Judge of the United States Court of Claims, sitting by designation. ↩