Konop

MEMORANDUM **

Appellant/Cross-Appellee Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. (“Hawaiian”) appeals the district court’s order vacating an award by the Hawaiian Airlines System Board of Adjustment (the “Board”) affirming Hawaiian’s discharge of Appellee/Cross-Appel-lant Robert C. Konop (“Konop”). Konop cross-appeals the district court’s denial of his alternative grounds for vacating the award. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse that portion of the district court’s order vacating the Board’s award, affirm in all other respects, and remand for entry of judgment confirming the Board’s award.

I.

The district court correctly recognized that the required notice of “the precise charge or charges” to the employee limits the Board’s authority to decide disputes. The district court erred, however, by equating “charges” with “facts” or “evidence.” The CBA leaves open what constitutes or suffices as a charge. It does not define a charge, nor does it specify what information, or degree of factual detail, if any, is required. Cf. Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 , 128 S.Ct. 1147, 1154 , 170 L.Ed.2d 10 (2008) (“Even with the aid of regulations the meaning of…

concurring and dissenting:

I would affirm the district court’s order in its entirety. A decision by the Hawaiian Airlines System Board of Adjustment (the “Board”) is entitled to considerable deference, see Rossi v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 507 F.2d 404, 405 (9th Cir.1974), including any plausible interpretation of the underlying collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). See Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 986 (9th Cir.2001). However, an award may be unenforceable when the arbitrator “strays from interpretation and application of the agreement and effectively ‘dispensed] his own brand of industrial justice.’ ” Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509 , 121 S.Ct. 1724 , 149 L.Ed.2d 740 (2001) (quoting United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 597 , 80 S.Ct. 1358 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960)). Moreover, an arbitrator is bound to abide by the plain language of a collective bargaining agreement that limits his authority. United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 , 108 S.Ct. 364 , 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987); Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Union, Local 996 v. United Parcel Service, 241 F.3d…