The railroad claims a federal judge exceeded his authority by interpreting an ambiguous arbitration award.
ST. LOUIS (CN) — The Kansas City Southern Railway Company told an Eighth Circuit panel on Thursday that a federal judge exceeded his authority in enforcing an arbitration award stemming from a labor dispute.
At issue was the termination of Brandon Smith, a conductor who is represented by The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers – Transportation Division (SMART).
An arbitrator with the National Railroad Adjustment Board found that Smith was wrongfully terminated. The ruling reinstated Smith with backpay, with no offsets according to a brief filed by SMART.
Following the ruling, KCSR demanded that Smith produce documentation of earnings during his unemployment to offset the backpay he was owed.
SMART then sued the railroad over the offset request in the Eastern District of Missouri, where U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Jr., a George W. Bush appointee, ruled in favor of SMART and Smith. The ruling prompted the appeal to the Eighth Circuit by KCSR.
KCSR attorney Richard W. Pins, of Stinson LLP in Minneapolis, said the issues should have been sent back to the board because of the ambiguity surrounding the award.
“The courts have clearly said that the district court does not a license or duty to interpret a minor dispute,” Pins said. “Where there is a minor dispute, the experts, the NRAB, are to handle it. That is black-letter law.”
But SMART attorney Shawn M. McKinley argued that the award was not ambiguous.
“The claim had very specific language,” McKinley said. “The claim was pay for all time lost without any deduction for outside earnings, and also included full benefits restored. The claim was sustained. What happened afterwards is KCS, the appellant, asked for proof of Mr. Smith’s outside earnings to deduct those earnings from the amount of backpay. The union, of course, filed suit because it’s not in compliance with what the award said.”
McKinley noted the amount of evidence presented before Judge Limbaugh, including detailed briefs.
“So, when Judge Limbaugh is looking at this case … It’s not a surprise that he would look at what the neutral said about the issue of back pay and take that as, it has some value, as far as do the merits of what KCS is arguing,” McKinley said.
But Pins argued that Limbaugh overstepped his authority.
“The judge said any fair understanding of the word restored benefits must include vacation,” Pins said. “According to who? Not according to our collective bargaining agreement. Not according to our past practice.”
U.S. Circuit Judge Jane Kelly, a Barack Obama appointee, questioned Pins on whether this case hinged on paying Smith two weeks of vacation.
“The backpay award, the test practice with awards written exactly like this one, has been to include an offset with respect to vacation,” Pins said. “Where employees are reinstated, they must work the requisite number of days. In this instance, the district court said the award was clear on its face. But in order to get to saying the award was clear on its face, the district court had to, and went ahead, and interpreted it.”
But McKinley countered that there is no ambiguity and questioned the union’s motives.
“There’s bona fide disputes, and then there’s attempts to just pick apart every part of the relief, and that’s what we’re dealing with here,” McKinley said.
U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond W. Gruender, a George W. Bush appointee, pressed McKinley on whether the issue of accrued benefits was itself ambiguous.
“I don’t agree that it requires an interpretation of the CBA,” McKinley said. “This is an arbitration award. It’s remedial. It’s meant to put the claimant here, Mr. Smith, put back into position as if he had never been fired.”
U.S. Circuit Judge L. Steven Grasz, a Donald Trump appointee, joined Kelly and Gruender on the panel, which took the arguments under advisement. There is no timetable for a judgment.
About The Author
