WPCY3 | +$9uBҩ^Gd ;R-@m^毱BfZua^-"c+9H2aSʸYcA +z͔ՊkD^~bXQpT[`&^rA$9]dUNWk~˗ALHÏOfP$KA%z,0?ې'iv*n_#!2UNS % 0(^ w@4 / > m@ W N_ U>a UB b 0  0DTM@M% 01) 0=Z 0 0>_ 0 0g 0 0a 00 0 09 0 02 0 0: 0! 0_! 0 ! 0k# 0n$ B*5& D3_& C& D+& 0& 0( 06) 0) 0:* 0h* 0Fe+U 6+U>+U*,MI,MM,UFQ,U .,f,a,,b,,E,,,,,,,,,,,,U>2UN222222222222222 B<3HP LaserJet 4 LOCAL,,,,,,0(A Z6Times New Roman Regular($V* E  D +   E  E {*(3|x  U \( 9Z+&Courier Regular<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi- -(e(2K$ !    =Qdd=    0   _ X K  =Qdd=    1    =  XXdd= ` Specifically,thearbitratorhadreinstatedemployeeswho  werelaidoffallegedlyasaresultofthecompany'sdecisiontolicenseoutsomeofits"coallands."Thecollectivebargainingagreement,however,onlyprotectedemployeesfromlayoffsresultingfromthelicensingoutof"coalminingoperations;"theagreementexplicitlyprovidedthatitsprotectionsdidnotapplytolayoffsresultingfromthelicensingoutof"coallands."Thearbitratorfailedtoaddressthiscriticaldifferenceinterminology.See720 ( x F.2dat136869.Likewise,inChampionInternational,supra,the  @ arbitratorawardedatypeofbonustothe_grievant_Ԁemployeeswhensuchbonuseswereonlyavailableunderapolicythatwasnotapplicabletothem.See168F.3dat73031.Thereviewingcourt H   foundthearbitrator'sfailuretodiscussacertainprovisionofthecollectivebargainingagreementtosupplyfurtherevidencethattheawarddidnotdrawitsessencefromtheagreement.Seeid.at    731.#QX #(#$  0   C_ X K  =Qdd=    2    =  XXdd= ` Inthecases_Keebler_Ԁreliesupon,thearbitrator  unambiguouslyfoundthatthe_grievant_Ԁhadcommittedconductlistedinhisemploymentagreementasgroundsfortermination.S#QX # XQee @ GeorgiaPacific,864F.2dat944(arbitratorfoundthatemployee's X claimthathewassickwhenheactuallywenttoplaygolfconstituted"dishonesty");S.D.Warren,845F.2dat67(arbitrator  foundemployeehadpossessedmarijuanaonemployer'sproperty);MetroChevrolet,835F.2dat5(arbitratorfoundthatemployeehad ( x beenabsentwithoutauthorization).#QX 2# 6_ X K  =Qdd=    3    =  XXdd= ` Indeed,thisisaneasiercase_than_ԀCraftsPrecision.In  thatcase,theagreementlistedsimple"insubordination"asanexampleofconductthat"mayresultinsuspension,orimmediatedischarge,forthefirstoffense."Thearbitratorfoundthislanguagetopermitadistinctionbetweeninsubordinationtoadegreewarrantingsuspensionandinsubordinationtoadegreewarrantingdischarge.SeeCraftsPrecision,889F.2dat1185.By `  contrast,here,thecollectivebargainingagreementitselfexplicitlydrawssuchadistinction,asitspecifiesnotsimply  @  "insubordination"but"grossinsubordination"asanexampleofconductrequiringnowarningbeforedischarge.#QX #0.Normal<:Definition T<GD:Definition L , ;1` hp x (#;  8.` hp x (#886Definition('z&H1      XXX(o&H2  XXX(o&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(o&H5  XXX(o&H6  XXX20Address8SP6Blockquote , , ;1` hp x (#;   8.` hp x (#8,*CITE,dl*CODEK6<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS7\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis6&)4Hyperlink            <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K6<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS7\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk (#/K6<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS7\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk (#/<:zBottom of I,-4$ ** ddI  B    ?8%2A`Arial?9.-*  dd9  XXXS7\  `&Times New RomanS  &0 d d++++'dxddd'dxd<:zTop of ForI,-4$** ddI  B    ?8%2A`Arial?9.-*  dd9  XXXS7\  `&Times New RomanS  0Kl.SampleK6<6X9`(Courier NewKS7\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK6<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS7\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable:8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`ArialL 9Z+.Courier New Regular<6X9`(CourierTable_A   - - _NX k  =dd=    1    =N XXdd= ` Specifically,thearbitratorhadreinstatedemployeeswho  werelaidoffallegedlyasaresultofthecompany'sdecisiontolicenseoutsomeofits"coallands."Thecollectivebargainingagreement,however,onlyprotectedemployeesfromlayoffsresultingfromthelicensingoutof"coalminingoperations;"theagreementexplicitlyprovidedthatitsprotectionsdidnotapplytolayoffsresultingfromthelicensingoutof"coallands."Thearbitratorfailedtoaddressthiscriticaldifferenceinterminology.See720 ( x F.2dat136869.Likewise,inChampionInternational,supra,the  @ arbitratorawardedatypeofbonustothe_grievant_Ԁemployeeswhensuchbonuseswereonlyavailableunderapolicythatwasnotapplicabletothem.See168F.3dat73031.Thereviewingcourt H   foundthearbitrator'sfailuretodiscussacertainprovisionofthecollectivebargainingagreementtosupplyfurtherevidencethattheawarddidnotdrawitsessencefromtheagreement.Seeid.at    731.#OX #Դ\( 9Z+&Courier Regular(A Z6Times New Roman Regular d !  _  8]YXXdd8*,X` XX*      = ]Y XXdd=    ]YX 7X ]Y77UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#77#7 7  FortheFirstCircuit # z 7 k#;a   z #;*  ;a#;Xq X ;*  A^B) ` dE<` A  # X]YX X;XqY#7Xx XX X]Y#7 X7Xx#7 7#77 #7Xx X7# X]YX X7XxI#<X]YXX X]Y  No.001994 E  ?_KEEBLER_ԀCOMPANY,Plaintiff,Appellee,v.TRUCKDRIVERS,LOCAL170,Defendant,Appellant.# X]YXX<X]Y #<X]YXX X]Y#<]YXX<X]Y#<X]YXX<]YA^B)I` dEI` A  ONAPPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS  [Hon.RyaW._Zobel_,  U.S.DistrictJudge]# X]YXX<X]Y-#7Xx XX X]Y  A^B) ` dE<D` A E # X]YX X7Xx#<X]YXX X]YBefore{  _Boudin_,CircuitJudge,  Ѐ_Bownes_,SeniorJudge, t andLynch,CircuitJudge.# X]YXX<X]Yg#7Xx XX X]Y d A^B) ` dE<` A l  # X]YX X7Xx#<X]YXX X]Y   ` ScottW.Ellis,withwhomRichardJ._Rafferty_,Jr.,and C" Eden_Tolins_Ԁ&_Rafferty_wereonbrief,forappellant.  #  ` KentD.B.Sinclair,withwhom_Seyfarth_ԀShawwason !$ brief,forappellee.  #<]YXX<X]Yo#<X<]Y# <S #6 *=> ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd,( dd,( dd+  ' #+' '  .^^#7( .#6]YX6\ #6X]YXX6]Y# X]YXX6X]Y #<X]YXX X]Y A  [r   pril23._2  񄄄   001 _  #<]YXX<X]Y! #<X<]Y# <c #6  6,!w% +"^^ 6  (#7, (#6]YX6,## ]YXX6]Yn# 0X?@  @= ]Y XXd XXd=     K&!, _= ]Y XXd XXd= ` LYNCH,CircuitJudge .OnApril27,1999,theKeebler  Companydischargedanemployee,MichaelMenchin,forgrossinsubordinationandfightingonthejob.Menchinandhisunion,TruckDrivers,Local170,tookthemattertoarbitration,astheywereentitledtodoundertheUnion'scollectivebargainingagreementwiththecompany.ThearbitratorfoundthatKeeblerdidnothavejustcausetoterminateMenchin,butdidhavejustcausetosuspendhim,andorderedhisreinstatementwithoutbackpay.Keeblerfiledanactioninfederalcourttovacatethearbitralaward;theUnioncounterclaimedforenforcement.ThedistrictcourtgrantedKeebler'smotionforjudgmentonthepleadings,findingthatthearbitratorhadclearlydepartedfromthelanguageofthecollectivebargainingagreement. TheUnion  appeals.Inlightofthehighdegreeofjudicialdeferenceowedtoarbitralawards,wereverse.  I.  p , ` Judicialreviewofarbitralawardsis"extremelynarrowandexceedinglydeferential."BullHNInfo.Sys.v.Hutson,229 0" F.3d321,330(1stCir.2000)(quotingWheelabratorEnvirotech p!$ OperatingServs.v.Mass.LaborersDist.CouncilLocal1144,88 #P& F.3d40,43(1stCir.1996)).Asthiscourtrecentlynoted,"disputesthatarecommittedbycontracttothearbitralprocessalmostalwaysarewonorlostbeforethearbitrator.Successfulcourtchallengesarefewandfarbetween."TeamstersLocalUnion @)$.  No.42v.Supervalu,Inc.,212F.3d59,61(1stCir.2000). * &0  ` Whereacollectivebargainingagreementcommitsthe partiestoarbitration,thearbitrator'sinterpretationoftheagreementistheonetheyhave"bargainedfor"andmustabideby.E.Assoc.Coalv.UnitedMineworkersofAm.,Dist.17,____U.S. `  ____,121S.Ct.462,466(2000).Thejobforareviewingcourt"ordinarilyislimitedtodeterminingwhetherthearbitrator'sconstructionofthecollectivebargainingagreementistoanyextentplausible."ExxonCorp.v.EssoWorkers'Union,Inc.,118   F.3d841,844(1stCir.1997),abrogatedonothergroundsbyE. 0  Assoc.Coal,supra(citingUnitedPaperworkersInt'lUnionv.  Misco,Inc.,484U.S.29,3638(1987)).Evenifacourt P stronglydisagreeswiththearbitrator'sdecision,thatisnotenoughtovacatethearbitralaward"aslongasthearbitratorisevenarguablyconstruingorapplyingthecontract."Misco,484 P U.S.at38. ` Thedistrictcourtfoundthatthearbitrator'sdecisiondidnotrestonaplausibleconstructionofthecollectivebargainingagreement,butsimplyreflected"hisownbrandofindustrialjustice."UnitedSteelworkersofAm.v.Enter.Wheel  $ andCarCorp.,363U.S.593,597(1960).Specifically,thecourt `"& foundthatthearbitratorexceededhiscontractualauthorityby:(1)requiringKeeblertomeeta"clearandconvincingevidence"standardofproofratherthanthemoreusual"preponderanceoftheevidence"standard;(2)holdingthattherewasno"fightingonthejob"becauseKeeblerhadnotshownbyclearandconvincingevidencethatMenchinstartedthefightinquestion;and(3)not +'2 explicitlydiscussingKeebler'sclaimthatMenchin'sterminationwaswarrantedduetohis"grossinsubordination"inadditiontohisfightingonthejob.      ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sdecisiondenovo.See `  BullHN,229F.3dat330.Becausetheheartofthelegal  @ analysisturnsonthelanguageofthepertinentcollectivebargainingagreementprovision,werecountitinfull.Article10oftheagreementprovides:0 ` TheEmployershallnotdischargenorsuspendanyemployeewithoutjustcause,butinrespecttodischargeorsuspensionshallgiveatleastone(1)warningnoticeofthesamecomplaintagainstsuchemployeetotheemployee,inwriting,andacopyofthesametotheUnionaffected,exceptthatnowarningnoticeneedbegiventoanemployeebeforeheisdischargedifthecauseofsuchdischargeisdishonesty,drinking,and/ordrunkenness,sale,use,orpossessionofillegaldrugsduringworkinghours,willfuldestructionofCompanyproperty,orrecklessnessresultinginaseriousaccidentwhileonduty,grossinsubordination,orthecarryingofunauthorizedpassengers,and/orfightingonthejob. X` (#` (#    II.  8 # ` Wediscussthethreegroundsforthedistrictcourt'sdecisionseriatim,andinadditiondiscussafourthargumentmadebyKeeblerthatthedistrictcourtfoundunnecessarytoaddress.  1.StandardofProof x#'  ` ThearbitratorrequiredKeeblertoestablishitscasebyclearandconvincingevidence.Keeblerarguesthatthearbitratorexceededhisauthorityindoingsobecausenothinginthetextofthecollectivebargainingagreementprovidedforaheightenedstandardofproof,andintheabsenceofsuch H+&1 provision,thecustomarycivilstandard"preponderanceoftheevidence"shouldcontrol.Thedistrictcourtagreed,finding @ nojustificationforthearbitrator'sdeparturefromthecustomarystandardofproof.Thecourtrejectedtherationaleofthearbitrator,whothoughtsuchadeparturewaswarrantedbecauseMenchinhadbeenterminatedfor"criminalconduct,"inthatthefightinquestionhadledtoanassaultandbatterychargeagainstMenchinthatwaspendingatthetime.     ` Wesharethedistrictcourt'sskepticismaboutthemeritsofthearbitrator'srationale.Itisunclearwhytheexistenceofacriminalproceedingshouldratchetupthestandardofproofinarelatedbutindependentarbitralproceedingaboutt  je   he terminationofemployment.Evenso,suchskepticismisnotenoughtovacatethearbitrator'sdecision.Arbitrationisacreatureofcontract.Here,thecollectivebargainingagreementisentirelysilentastothestandardofprooftobeusedbythearbitrator.Whereanarbitrationagreementissilent,courtcustomsdonotstandasbindingdefaultrules.SeeSlaneyv. @" Int'lAmateurAth.Fed'n,F.3d,2001U.S.App.LEXIS  $ 4923,at*24(7thCir.Mar.27,2001)("[P]artiesthathavechosentoremedytheirdisputesthrougharbitrationratherthanlitigationshouldnotexpectthesameprocedurestheywouldfindinthejudicialarena.").Rather,thearbitratorisfreetosethisownrulesofproceduresolongashestayswithintheboundsoffundamentalfairness.CompareGen.Drivers,etc.v.Sears, 0*%0 Roebuck&Co.,535F.2d1072,1076(8thCir.1976)(given +'2 nationalpolicyfavoringarbitrationofcollectivebargaininggrievances,arbitrator'sproceduralrulingsarenotsubjecttojudicialreview),withRamirezdeArellanov.Am.Airlines,133   F.3d89,91(1stCir.1997)(arbitrationmustmeetminimalrequirementsoffairness).Applyingaheightenedstandardof  @ prooftoterminationsresultingfrompotentiallycriminalconduct,whilejudiciallyunorthodox,isnotfundamentallyunfair.Thus,giventheagreement'ssilenceontheissue,thechoiceofstandardwaswithinthearbitrator'sdiscretion.See 0  Gen.Drivers,535F.2dat107576(findingnothingimpermissible  inarbitrators'choicetouse"clearandconvincingevidence"standardinreviewingpromotiondecision);Amalgamated 0 Meatcuttersv.NeuhoffBros.Packers,Inc.,481F.2d817,81920 p (5thCir.1973)(findingnothingimpermissibleinarbitrator'schoicetouse"beyondareasonabledoubt"standardwhereemployeeswereterminatedforstealingfromthecompany).   p  2.FightingontheJob    ` Menchinwasfiredafteraphysicalaltercationwithhis @" supervisor.TheUnionchallengedMenchin'sterminationonthegroundthathehadfoughtinselfdefense.Thearbitratorwasunabletodeterminehowtheincidentbegan,buthespecificallyfoundthatMenchindidnot"suckerpunch"hissupervisorasclaimedandcouldfindnootherevidencesufficienttoprovethatMenchinprovokedthealtercation .Thus,thearbitratordeclined (#.  tofindthatMenchinhadengagedin"fightingonthejob"onthe 0*%0 ground s thatKeeblercouldnotprovebyclearandconvincingevidencethatMenchinstartedthefight.  ` Keeblerargues,andthedistrictcourtagreed,thattheterm"fightingonthejob"unambiguouslyencompassesanyphysical `  fightingatwork,whetheroffensiveordefensive,sothatthearbitrator'snarrowerconstructionofthetermwasimplausible.Keebler'sargumentiswithoutmerit;thearbitrator'sconstructionofthetermwaspatentlyplausible.Courtsthemselvesarenostrangerstotheambiguitylatentinfaciallyabsoluteprohibitionsagainstactsofviolence.Crimesofmurder,assault,andthelikeareroutinelyconstruedtocontainexceptionsforactstakeninselfdefenseoruponprovocation.Thearbitratoractedwellwithinhisboundsininterpretingthecontractualprohibitionagainst"fightingonthejob"inanalogousfashion.3.GrossInsubordination  p  ` BeforeMenchin'sphysicalaltercationwithhissupervisor,thetwohadanaggravatedverbalexchange.Keeblerargues,andthedistrictcourtagreed,thatthearbitratorerredbyfailingtodiscusswhetherMenchin'sconductintheexchangeconstitutedgrossinsubordination,whichthecollectivebargainingagreementlistsasapossiblegroundforimmediatedischarge.Consequently,Keeblerconcludes,thearbitrator'sdecisioncannotbefairlysaidtodrawitsessencefromthecollectivebargainingagreement.Forsupport,KeeblercitesaFourthCircuitcaseforthepropositionthat"where...the +'2 arbitratorfailstodiscusscriticalcontractterminology,whichterminologymightreasonablyrequireanoppositeresult,theawardcannotbeconsideredtodrawitsessencefromthecontract."ClinchfieldCoalCo.v.District28,UnitedMine `  WorkersofAm.,720F.2d1365,1369(4thCir.1983),citedin  @ ChampionInt'lCorp.v.UnitedPaperworkersInt'lUnion,168F.3d    725,731(4thCir.1999). ` TheresultinClinchfieldwasjustifiedbutthe   propositionKeeblerquotesissomethingofanoverstatement.Arbitratorsordinarilyareundernoobligationtoexplainthereasonsforanawardevenwherethecontractualbasisfortheawardisambiguous.Enter.Wheel,363U.S.at59798.In 0 Clinchfield,theunderlyingproblemwiththearbitrator's p decisionwasthattheresultseemedimpossibletosquarewithcertainprovisionsofthecontract;withoutsomediscussionoftheprovisionsbythearbitrator,thecourtwasforcedtoconcludethatthearbitralawarddidnotdrawitsessencefromthecontract.  M #  1       @"  ` Bycontrast,herethearbitrator'sawardisnot  impossibletosquarewiththe language  provision ofthecollectivebargainingagreementpermittingimmediatedischargeforgrossinsubordination.Indeed,thearbitrator'sawardcaneasilybe `  understoodtorestontheviewthatMenchindidnotcommitgross  @ insubordination.Whilethearbitratordidnotusepreciselysuch    terms,hearrivedatthisconclusioninsomanywordsuponreviewingMenchin'sconductduringtheverbalexchange.Thearbitratorconcluded:"WhileIfindthat[Menchin'swordstohissupervisor]indicatedunacceptabledisrespect...andwereworthyofdiscipline,Idonotfindthatadischargeableevent[]occurredduringtheargument...." Similarly,the 0 arbitrator'sawardstatesthatKeebler"didnothavejustcausetoterminateMichaelMenchin,butitdidhavejustcausetosuspendhim."  0  ` Thus,insubstance,thearbitratorfoundsomedegreeofinsubordination,butnotthesortofgrossinsubordination P  sufficienttoconstitutejustcauseforimmediatetermination.Hedidnotfailtoaddresstheissueinhisdecision;andevenifhehad,theawardwouldstillbecompatiblewiththeabovereadingandhencedeservingofjudicialdeference.Cf. @$( Supervalu,212F.3dat67(becauseanarbitratorhasnodutyto % !* statethegroundsforhisaward,reviewingcourtmayupholdtheawardongroundsnotemployedbythearbitratorhimself). (@$. 4.AlterationofFormofDiscipline   ` Finally,insomewhatofaturnaroundfromtheprecedingargument,KeeblerarguesthatinfindingMenchin'sconductduringtheverbalexchange"worthyofdiscipline"andjustcauseforsuspension,thearbitratoreffectivelyfoundthatMenchincommittedgrossinsubordination.Havingfoundgrossinsubordination,theargumentcontinues,thearbitratorwasboundtoupholdMenchin'sdischarge;hehadnoauthoritytoaltertheformofMenchin'sdisciplinefromterminationtosuspension.Forsupport,Keeblercitesastringofcasesforthepropositionthat,onceanarbitratorfindsthatanemployeecommittedsomeactspecificallylistedinthecollectivebargainingagreementasprovidingjustcausefortermination,thearbitratorisnotfreetodeterminethattheactdoesnotwarrantterminationbutratherwarrantssomelesserpenalty.SeeGeorgiaPacificCorp.v.Local  27,UnitedPaperworkersInt'lUnion,864F.2d940,94445(1st  p Cir.1988);S.D.WarrenCo.v.UnitedPaperworkersInt'lUnion,   845F.2d3,8(1stCir.1988);MetroChevrolet,Inc.v.Unionde @" TronquistasdePuertoRico,835F.2d3,5(1stCir.1987).  $  ` Keebler'sargumentturnsontwoassumptions:(1)thatthecollectivebargainingagreementunambiguouslylistsgrossinsubordinationasprovidingjustcausefortermination;and(2)thatthearbitratorineffectfoundgrossinsubordination.Bothassumptionsareunfounded.Astothefirst,theagreementmerelysaysthatemployeesmayneitherbedischargednorsuspendedwithoutjustcauseandthebenefitofawarning,exceptthatno +'2 warningneedbegivenbeforeterminatinganemployeefor,interalia,grossinsubordination.Itdoesnotexpresslystatethatgrossinsubordinationwillalwaysbejustcausefortermination(onlythatwhenitis,theemployeemaybeterminatedwithoutwarning).Andindeed,onprioroccasionswehaveheldverysimilarlanguagetobeambiguousinthisrespect.Exxon,118    F.3dat84546;CraftsPrecisionIndus.,Inc.v.LodgeNo.1836, `  etc.,889F.2d1184,118586(1stCir.1989).    ` Astothesecondassumption,thearbitrator'sdecisionneednotbereadtorestonafindingofgrossinsubordination. #  2      ׀  Again,thedecisioncaneasilybeunderstoodtorestonafindingthatMenchinactedinsubordinately,butthathisconductdidnotrisetothelevelof"gross"insubordination.Cf.Crafts p Precision,889F.2dat118586(readingagreementto"suggest P thatsomekindsofinsubordinationmaywarrant'discharge,'whileother,lessseriousinstancesmaywarrantonly'suspension'"). #  3        p Ї  III.   R ` Thedecisionofthedistrictcourtisreversedandthecaseisremandedforentryofjudgmentenforcingtheaward.