Edward Hines Lumber Company of Oregon v. Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local No. 2588 and Central Oregon District Council, Lpiw

INTRODUCTION.

Appellee, Edward Hines Lumber Company of Oregon, (hereafter “the Employer”) originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon seeking to vacate an arbitration award in favor of appellants, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union Local 2588 and the Central Oregon District Council, LPIW (hereafter “the Union”). The Union counterclaimed for the award’s confirmation.

On December 12, 1983, the district court granted summary judgment for the employer and vacated the arbitration award.

*633 The union’s appeal seeks reversal of the district court’s decision and reinstatement of the arbitrator’s award. The union argues that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in ruling that there were limitations on the employer’s right to subcontract bargaining unit work.

We agree with the union’s position. Accordingly, we reverse the district court decision and confirm the arbitrator’s award.

FACTS.

The facts are essentially undisputed. The employer operates several facilities and related logging operations near John Day, Oregon. The underlying arbitration took place pursuant to a Collective Bargaining Agreement (hereafter “the Agreement”)…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. The majority concludes that the district court improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the arbitrator in vacating the arbitrator’s award in favor of the Union. I disagree, for the reason that the majority’s disposition misses what I perceive to be the critical question presented by this appeal: When management’s decision to subcontract work does not violate the express terms of a collective bargaining agreement and causes no unemployment among bargaining unit workers, should an arbitration award based upon a disregarding of these facts be upheld? I submit that it should not.

The undisputed facts are that the collective bargaining agreement contains a broadly worded management rights clause which clearly grants management the discretion to decide all matters not specifically contained in the agreement. There is nothing in the agreement concerning limitations on management’s right to subcontract work. This is consistent with the history of the parties’ labor-management relations, since management had always subcontracted some work. Indeed, on three occasions the Union took disputes arising out of such subcontracting practices to…

764 F.2d 631 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3210 , 103 Lab.Cas. P 11,532 EDWARD HINES LUMBER COMPANY OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 2588 and Central Oregon District Council, LPIW, Defendants-Appellants. No. 84-3503. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 7, 1984. Decided June 25, 1985. 1 David H. Wilson, Jr., Larry K. Amburgey, Bullard, Korshoj, Smith & Jernstedt, Portland, Or., for plaintiff-appellee. 2 Bernard Jollis, Michael T. Garone, Jolles, Sokol & Bernstein, Portland, Or., for defendants-appellants. 3 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. 4 Before KILKENNY and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges, and AGUILAR * , District Judge. AGUILAR, District Judge: 5 INTRODUCTION. 6 Appellee, Edward Hines Lumber Company of Oregon, (hereafter "the Employer") originally filed this action in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon seeking to vacate an arbitration award in favor of appellants, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union Local 2588 and the Central Oregon District Council, LPIW (hereafter "the Union"). The Union counterclaimed for the award's confirmation. 7 On December…