Air Methods Corp. v. Office & Professional Employees International Union , 329 F. App'x 204 ( 2009 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 16, 2009
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
AIR METHODS CORPORATION,
Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 08-1442
(D.C. No. 1:07-CV-02025-WDM-BNB)
v. (D. Colo.)
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL
UNION; OFFICE AND
PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL NO. 109,
Defendants-Appellants.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before KELLY, McKAY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff-appellee Air Methods Corporation filed a complaint in federal
district court seeking to vacate an arbitration award issued pursuant to the
Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151-188, in favor of defendants-appellants
*
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Office and Professional Employees International Union (“OPEIU”) and Office
and Professional Employees International Union, Local 109 (“Local 109”)
(collectively referred to by the parties as “the Union”). 1 On cross-motions, the
district court granted Air Methods summary judgment and vacated the arbitration
award. In so doing, the court concluded that the arbitration award “did not draw
its essence from the CBA because it [was] contrary to the express language of the
contract and [was] without factual support in light of the working and purpose of
. . . the agreement as shown by the language, context, past practice, and
negotiating history.” App. at 258. The Union appeals, contending the district
court violated “fundamental principles” applicable to “the review of arbitration
awards.” Aplt. Op. Br. at 8.
Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “We review the district
court’s summary judgment decision de novo, applying the same legal standard
used by [that court under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)].” Ripley v. Wyo. Med. Ctr., Inc.,
559 F.3d 1119, 1121 (10th Cir. 2009). We are mindful—as was the district
court—that judicial review of an arbitral decision is “‘among the narrowest
known to the law.’” App. at 253 (quoting LB & B Assocs. v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec.
1
Air Methods is an air carrier within the meaning of 45 U.S.C. § 181.
Certain of its employees, who provide contract air medical transport services, are
represented by OPEIU and Local 109. Air Methods, OPEIU, and Local 109 are
parties to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) governing Air Methods’s
pilots’ wages, hours, and working conditions.
-2-
Workers, 461 F.3d 1195, 1197 (10th Cir. 2006)). Thus, so long “as the
arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the [CBA], the courts have no
business overruling [the arbitrator] because their interpretation of the [CBA]
differs.” Local No. 7 United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union v. King
Soopers, Inc., 222 F.3d 1223, 1226 (10th Cir. 2000).
Nonetheless, an arbitrator is confined to interpretation and
application of the collective bargaining agreement; he does not sit to
dispense his own brand of industrial justice, . . . . his award is
legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective
bargaining agreement.
Id. at 1227 (citation and quotation omitted). An award does not draw its essence
from the CBA where
it is contrary to the express language of the [CBA] . . . or . . . is so
unfounded in reason and fact, so unconnected with the working and
purpose of the agreement as to manifest an infidelity to the
obligation of the arbitrator . . . . [or] if viewed in the light of its
language, its context, and any other indicia of the parties’ intention,
it is without factual support.
Id. (quotation omitted).
The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case,
the district court detailed both, and we need not restate that material here. Having
reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law pursuant to the
above-mentioned standards, we conclude that the Union has not shown any
reversible error in this case. We therefore AFFIRM the judgment of the district
-3-
court for substantially the same reasons stated in its Order on Motions for
Summary Judgment filed October 15, 2008.
Entered for the Court
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-