USCA1 Opinion
March 19, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_________________________
No. 95-1865
AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS UNION, ETC., ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nancy Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________
____________________
Cornelius J. P. Sullivan, with whom Brenda E. W. Sullivan
_________________________ ______________________
and Sullivan & Walsh were on brief, for appellants.
________________
Susan M. Poswistilo, Assistant United States Attorney, with
____________________
whom Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, R. Andrew German,
________________ _________________
Chief Appellate Counsel, United States Postal Service, and Brian
_____
M. Reimer, Attorney, United States Postal Service, were on brief,
_________
for appellees.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. When Congress established the Postal
Per Curiam
___________
Service (the Service) in 1970, it set in place a labor relations
format patterned after the private sector. See 39 U.S.C.
___
1201-1209 (1994). Under that framework, appellant American
Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (the Union) entered into a series
of collective bargaining agreements with the Service. During the
currency of one such agreement, the Service discharged a trio of
postal workers (Dennis Daniels, Jonathan Davis, and Karen
Johnson) for cause.
The three all of whom worked at the Sudbury,
Massachusetts post office were members of a bargaining unit
represented by the Union. The Union prosecuted grievances on
their behalf. Following a five-day evidentiary hearing, the
arbitrator found that the grievants committed the acts with which
they had been charged, and that the Service had just cause for
the disciplinary actions which it took in first suspending, and
later ousting, the grievants.
The Union filed an action in the federal district court
with a view toward vacating the arbitral award.1 Its complaint
claimed that the award "did not draw its essence from the
collective bargaining agreement" because it was "not based on
sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of just cause." In a
well-reasoned opinion, the district court granted the Service's
____________________
1For ease in reference, we treat the case if the Union and
the Service were the sole protagonists. In the circumstances at
hand, the presence of other parties adds nothing of any
consequence.
2
motion for summary judgment. See American Postal Workers Union
___ ______________________________
v. United States Postal Serv., No. 92-10364-NG, slip op. (D.
___________________________
Mass. June 28, 1995). The Union appeals. We summarily affirm.
There is no need to tarry. Having read the voluminous
record, considered the parties' briefs, and entertained oral
argument, we find no basis to disturb either the arbitral award
or the district court's decision. To the precise contrary, we
regard this as a paradigmatic case in which to put into practice
our oft-stated belief that, when lower courts have done first-
rate work, an appellate tribunal should not wax longiloquent
simply to hear its own words resonate. See In re San Juan Dupont
___ _____________________
Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989 F.2d 36, 38 (1st Cir. 1993).
__________________________
Consequently, we affirm the judgment for substantially the
reasons elucidated in the opinion below. We add only a few brief
comments.
The statute that confers a right to challenge an
arbitral award in a postal employment case, 39 U.S.C. 1208(b),
is an analog to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations
Act, 29 U.S.C. 185(a), and therefore, the case law under the
two statutes is generally interchangeable. See Miller v. United
___ ______ ______
States Postal Serv., 985 F.2d 9, 10 n.1 (1st Cir. 1993). Under
___________________
either scheme, "courts are not authorized to reconsider the
merits of arbitration awards." S. D. Warren Co. v. United
__________________ ______
Paperworkers' Int'l Union, Local 1069, 845 F.2d 3, 7 (1st Cir.),
______________________________________
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 992 (1988). The exceptions to this rule
_____ ______
are few and far between. See Advest, Inc. v. McCarthy, 914 F.2d
___ ____________ ________
3
6, 8 (1st Cir. 1990) (limning exceptions); Bettencourt v. Boston
___________ ______
Edison Co., 560 F.2d 1045, 1049 (1st Cir. 1977) (similar). To
__________
make a long story short, a challenger must show that the award is
"(1) unfounded in reason and fact; (2) based on reasoning so
palpably faulty that no judge, or group of judges, ever could
conceivably have made such a ruling; or (3) mistakenly based on a
crucial assumption that is concededly a non-fact." Local 1445,
___________
United Food & Commercial Workers v. Stop & Shop Cos., 776 F.2d
_________________________________ ________________
19, 21 (1st Cir. 1985). These exceptions are narrowly construed
and, unless one of them applies, even "a court's conviction that
the arbitrator made a serious mistake or committed grievous error
will not furnish a satisfactory basis for undoing the decision."
Advest, Inc., 914 F.2d at 9; accord Georgia-Pacific Corp. v.
_____________ ______ ______________________
Local 27, United Paperworkers Int'l Union, 864 F.2d 940, 944 (1st
_________________________________________
Cir. 1988).
As the district court recognized, the instant case does
not fit within the confines of any of the three long-odds
exceptions. The linchpin of the Union's position, as counsel
made clear at oral argument, is that the arbitral award is
irrational because the three grievants were all audited on the
same day and only minor discrepancies were found in their stamp
stock. Therefore, the Union's thesis runs, it is impossible that
any of the trio could have stolen stamp stock (from which it
follows that the arbitrator based his decision on facts that
could not have been true).
To be sure, this is one possible interpretation of
4
selected items of evidence. But the arbitrator faced a golconda
of conflicting testimony regarding specific dates, and the Union
has simply woven together the timeline most beneficial to its
view of the universe. The arbitrator apparently chose a
different timeline after hearing the witnesses and carefully
considering the surrounding circumstances. The record supports a
finding that Daniels was audited for the second time on Monday,
April 16, 1990, when Davis was absent from work, and not on
Tuesday, April 17; that Davis and Johnson were then audited the
next day (April 17); and that, although no substantial amounts of
stamp stock were found to be missing, some form of deception or
sleight of hand was being practiced by the three clerks to hide
the fact incontrovertibly proven that Davis had stolen as
much as $6,000 by unauthorized withdrawals from his stock.
We add two further observations. First, even if the
three grievants all had been audited on the same day as the Union
contends, the arbitrator's conclusion of just cause for discharge
would remain soundly based.2 Second, while the exceptions we
____________________
2The postmaster (Packard) sealed the safe containing the
clerks' cash drawers on Saturday evening, April 14, and upon
returning to work on Monday morning noticed signs of a break-in.
When audits were conducted on Monday and Tuesday, Daniels and
Johnson showed an unusual loss of large denomination stamps,
while Davis had an inexplicable surplus of $2 stamps. Moreover,
Johnson's fingerprints were found on seven sheets of stamps in
Davis' stock. In May, postal inspectors determined that
$1,153.30 of Johnson's stamp stock had originated from sources
other than authorized postal channels. Given this and other
evidence (including admissions by Daniels and Johnson), the
arbitrator easily could conclude that the three clerks purchased
stamps from outside sources to replenish Davis' stock prior to
his audit. On that hypothesis, the three audits, even if
conducted on the same day, would likely reveal no major
5
have described can take hold on a showing that the arbitral award
was "mistakenly based on a crucial assumption that is concededly
a non-fact," Advest, Inc., 914 F.2d at 8-9, that doctrine is
_____________
limited to cases in which no competent evidence of an adjudicated
__
fact appears in the record. The doctrine has no bearing where,
as here, there is evidence both ways as to the pivotal facts.
We need go no further. Refined to bare essence, the
Union's claim is that the arbitrator found the facts in a clearly
erroneous manner, largely because he believed the "wrong"
witnesses and credited the "wrong" bits of conflicting testimony.
Even if this claim were well-founded and there is not very
much in the record to suggest any egregious factual error we
could not grant the requested relief. See International Bhd of
___ _____________________
Firemen & Oilers, Local 261 v. Great Northern Paper Co., 765 F.2d
___________________________ ________________________
295, 296 (1st Cir. 1985) (explaining that "courts are precluded
from interfering with arbitration awards for mere errors in
assessing the credibility of witnesses"). It follows inexorably
that we must uphold the district court's rejection of the Union's
challenge to the arbitral award.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. R. 27.1.
________ ___
____________________
discrepancies.
6
