Marshall Durbin v. United Food & Cmercl

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: July 19, 2001
• Docket: 00-60822
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60822 Summary Calendar

MARSHALL DURBIN POULTRY COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

versus

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 1991, AFL-CIO, on behalf of Zandria Wilson,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi USDC Nos. 2:99-CV-272-PG, 2:99-CV-273-PG

July 19, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1991, AFL-CIO

appeals the district court's order vacating two arbitration awards

to former employees of Marshall Durbin Poultry Company, Inc. The

district court found that the parties' Collective Bargaining

Agreement established a three-step grievance procedure as a

prerequisite to arbitration. The district court held that the

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. arbitrators had exceeded their authority under the CBA by finding

that the disputes were arbitrable. The district court determined

that, since the grievance procedure was not followed, arbitration

was not appropriate.

A district court may vacate an arbitral award if the

arbitrator exceeded the scope of its authority as outlined in the

agreement.1 Although courts accord considerable deference to the

merits of arbitral awards, courts are free to reexamine the

jurisdictional requirements of a collective bargaining agreement.2

The court did not err in finding that the parties could not

modify the step three procedures by anything other than a mutual,

written agreement. The district court also correctly observed that

these grievance procedures constituted a jurisdictional

prerequisite to arbitration. We conclude that the court did not err

in holding that the arbitrators exceeded the scope of their

authority under the CBA.

AFFIRMED.

1 See E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Local 900 of Int'l Chem. Workers Union, 968 F.2d 456, 458 (5th Cir. 1992). 2 See id.; Delta Queen Steamboat Co. v. Dist. 2 Marine Eng'rs Beneficial Ass'n, 889 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir. 1989); Container Products, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, 873 F.2d 818, 819-20 (5th Cir. 1989).