Westinghouse Hanford Corporation v. Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council

39 F.3d 1190 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. WESTINGHOUSE HANFORD CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HANFORD ATOMIC METAL TRADES COUNCIL, Defendant-Appellant. No. 93-35895. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Oct. 7, 1994. Decided Nov. 2, 1994. Before: LAY, * TROTT and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 This is an appeal from the district court's order granting summary judgment and vacating an arbitrator's award on the ground that the award was against public policy. The district court had jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 . We have jurisdiction to review the district court's final order under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . Hanford Atomic Metal Trades Council ("the Union") appeals from the district court's grant of summary judgment to Westinghouse Hanford Company ("Westinghouse"). 3 Several thousand employees at the Department of Energy's ("DOE") Hanford Nuclear Reservation ("Hanford") belong to the Union. By…