Misco, Inc. v. United Paperworkers Intern. Union
768 F.2d 739 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may refuse to enforce an arbitrator's award under a collective bargaining agreement if the award is contrary to a well-defined and dominant public policy, such as the policy against the operation of dangerous machinery by persons under the influence of controlled substances.
Facts:
- Misco, Inc. operated a plant with a known drug and alcohol problem, particularly on the night shift.
- Isiah Cooper, an employee, operated an unusually dangerous slitter-rewinder machine and was aware of Misco's strict rule against possessing or using drugs on plant premises.
- Cooper had been reprimanded twice for shoddy and inattentive work shortly before his discharge.
- On January 21, 1983, police searched Cooper's home and found marijuana.
- During Cooper's shift that same day, police observed him enter his car and then another car in the company parking lot.
- Police apprehended Cooper in the back seat of the second car, which was filled with marijuana smoke and had a lit marijuana cigarette in the ashtray.
- A subsequent search of Cooper's own car on the company lot revealed a plastic scales case containing marijuana residue.
Procedural Posture:
- Misco, Inc. discharged its employee, Isiah Cooper, for allegedly violating its rule against drug possession on company property.
- Cooper's union, the United Paperworkers International Union, contested the discharge through the grievance process, which proceeded to arbitration.
- The arbitrator ruled in favor of the union, finding Misco had not proven Cooper violated the rule, and ordered Cooper's reinstatement with full back pay.
- Misco, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, a court of first instance, seeking to vacate the arbitrator's award.
- The District Court granted Misco's request and set aside the award on the grounds that it violated public policy.
- The Union, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with Misco, Inc. as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an arbitrator's award ordering the reinstatement of an employee who operated dangerous machinery and was apprehended on company property in the presence of marijuana violate a well-defined public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Gee, Circuit Judge
Yes. The arbitrator's award violates a well-defined and dominant public policy against the operation of dangerous machinery by persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The arbitrator found that Cooper was apprehended on company premises in a car filled with marijuana smoke and that marijuana was found in his own car on the company lot. To order his reinstatement to a job operating a hazardous machine, despite these facts, is contrary to serious and well-founded public policy. The court's reasoning relies heavily on the precedent set in Amalgamated Meat Cutters v. Great Western Food Co., which established that an award reinstating a truck driver caught drinking on duty violated public policy. The court found the danger posed by an impaired operator of industrial machinery to be analogous to that of an intoxicated truck driver. The arbitrator improperly focused on procedural issues, such as what the employer knew at the moment of discharge, while ignoring the substantive truth that Cooper had brought drugs onto company premises, creating a safety hazard.
Dissenting - Tate, Circuit Judge
No. The arbitrator's award does not violate public policy because judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited, and courts cannot overturn an award based on disagreements with the arbitrator's factual findings or reasoning. The arbitrator squarely found that the company had not proven Cooper violated the rule against possessing or consuming drugs on the premises. The majority improperly relies on facts the arbitrator deemed inadmissible (the marijuana residue discovered after the discharge) to justify vacating the award. The public policy exception is very narrow and requires the award to violate a policy that is 'well defined and dominant,' which is not the case here. Unlike the employee in Amalgamated Meat Cutters who was found to have been drinking on the job, the arbitrator here made a conclusive factual finding that Cooper did not possess or use marijuana at work, and courts are bound by that finding.
Analysis:
This decision significantly affirms the power of federal courts to vacate arbitration awards on public policy grounds, particularly in cases involving employee conduct that threatens public or workplace safety. It establishes that courts may look beyond an arbitrator's specific findings if the ultimate result of the award—such as reinstating an employee to a safety-sensitive position after drug-related conduct on company property—contravenes a clear public policy. The ruling highlights the inherent tension between the national policy favoring the finality of arbitration and the judiciary's role in upholding fundamental public policies. It provides employers with a basis to challenge arbitration awards that they believe endanger the workplace, even if the arbitrator finds no technical violation of a specific work rule.
