Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Ohio Edison Company v. Ohio Edison Joint Council Local 457 Utility Workers Union of America

947 F.2d 786

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1991-08-06
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • reviewing arbitrator's interpretation of a last-chance agreement and holding that the award—which did not enforce the agreement and thus failed to follow a Sixth Circuit opinion that held such agreements were enforceable—did not draw its essence from the agreement
  • arbitrator lacked authority to set aside last chance agreement on grounds that grievant’s discharge was “too harsh”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ohio Edison Company v. Ohio Edison Joint Council Local 457 Utility Workers Union of America. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
23 opinions
OHIO EDISON CO., v. OHIO EDISON JOINT COUN.,947 F.2d 786(6th Cir. 1991)
OHIO EDISON COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. OHIO EDISON JOINT COUNCIL;
LOCAL 457 UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 90-4050.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued July 18, 1991.
Decided August 6, 1991.fn*
Gregory P. Szuter (argued and briefed). Antoinette Frantz (briefed), Buckley, KingPage 787Bluso, Cleveland, Ohio, Gary D. Benz (briefed), Ohio Edison Co., Akron, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard A. Abrams, Barry R. Laine (argued and briefed), Green, Haines, Sgambati, Murphy Macala, Youngstown, Ohio, for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Before MERRITT, Chief Judge, KEITH, Circuit Judge, and BROWN, Senior Circuit Judge.
MERRITT, Chief Judge.
[1] The issue before us is whetherBaker's Union v. ITTContinental Baking Co.,749 F.2d 350(6th Cir. 1984), remains good law in the Sixth Circuit.Baker's Unionholds that a labor arbitrator does not "have the authority to disregard the explicit terms of the prior settlement [or "last chance"] agreement reached by the parties."Id.at 353.Baker's Unionis directly in point. There, as here, an employee had a substance abuse problem — there an alcohol problem, here a drug abuse problem. In both cases the local union worked out a "last chance" agreement which contemplated correction of the problem through treatment, but both agreements called for discharge if there were a breach of the obligations imposed. InBaker's Unionthe employee breached the obligation to attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Here the employee continued to use marijuana which was revealed in tests administered under the agreement. In a comprehensive opinion, Judge Martin, writing for the court, surveyed the cases and policies underlying theSteelworkers'Trilogyand concluded that normally last chance agreements are binding in arbitration.See United Steelworkers of America v.American Manufacturing Co.,363 U.S. 564,80 S.Ct. 1343,4 L.Ed.2d 1403(1960);United Steelworkers of America v. WarriorGulf Navigation,363 U.S. 574,80 S.Ct. 1347,4 L.Ed.2d 1409(1960); andUnited Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise WheelCarr Corp.,363 U.S. 593,80 S.Ct. 1358,4 L.Ed.2d 1424(1960). We conclude thatBaker's Unionremains the law of the Circuit and is applicable to this case. Article V Step 1 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement contains language which provides for such agreements. The arbitrator disregarded the agreement because he viewed the discharge as "unreasonably harsh." UnderBaker's Unionhe did not have the authority to set aside the last chance agreement on this ground.

[2] Nothing in the recent Supreme Court opinion ofUnitedPaperworkers v. Misco, Inc.,484 U.S. 29,108 S.Ct. 364,98 L.Ed.2d 286(1987), nor in our recent opinion inEberhard Foods,Inc. v. Handy,868 F.2d 890(6th Cir. 1989), alters the holding inBaker's Union.

[3] Accordingly, since the District Court enforced the arbitration award which declined to follow theBaker's Unioncase, the judgment of the District Court is reversed and the case remanded to the District Court with instructions to vacate the award of the arbitration panel.
  1. This decision was originally issued as an "unpublished decision" filed on August 6, 1991. On September 25, 1991, the court designated the opinion as one recommended for full text publication. ↩