Processing Sys v. UMWA ( 2004 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 04a0109n.06
Filed: November 18, 2004
No. 03-6426
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
PROCESSING SYSTEMS, LLC, )
)
Plaintiff and Third Party Defendant- )
Appellant, ) ON APPEAL FROM THE
) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
v. ) COURT FOR THE EASTERN
) DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, )
DISTRICT 20 AND LOCAL UNION 7425 )
)
Defendant-Appellee, )
)
v. )
)
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, )
INTERNATIONAL UNION, )
)
Third Party Plaintiff. )
BEFORE: KEITH, CLAY, and BRIGHT,* Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM. The Plaintiff-Appellant, Processing Systems, LLC (“Processing Systems”),
brought suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against the
Defendant-Appellee, United Mine Workers of America, District 20 and Local Union 7425
(“UMWA”), seeking an order to vacate an arbitration award.1 After receiving motions for summary
*
The Honorable Myron H. Bright, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting
by designation.
1
The United Mine Workers of America, International Union, filed a third-party complaint,
which was dismissed and is not the subject of this appeal.
No. 03-6426
Processing Systems v. UMWA
Page 2
judgment from both parties, the district court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting
summary judgment for UMWA.
We have reiterated that “the Supreme Court has established strong precedent for judicial
deference to arbitrators’ awards.” Dixie Warehouse & Cartage Co. v. General Drivers,
Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 89, 898 F.2d 507, 510 (6th Cir. 1990). Furthermore,
“an arbitrator’s factual errors and even misinterpretations of a collective bargaining agreement are
not subject to reconsideration by the court.” Sterling China Co. v. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics
& Allied Workers Local No. 24, 357 F.3d 546, 551 (6th Cir. 2004). Having had the benefit of oral
argument, and having considered the briefs of the parties and reviewed the record de novo, we are
not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for UMWA. We agree
with the district court that “Processing Systems has not met its very high burden in seeking to vacate
an arbitrator’s decision.” J.A. at 952.
Because the district court thoroughly articulated the reasons for summary judgment, we find
that the issuance of a full written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful
purpose. We therefore adopt the reasoning of the district court in its opinion dated October 3, 2003,
and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment for UMWA.