United Food v. St. John's Mercy

8 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. National Football League

    582 F.3d 863 (8th Cir. 2009)   Cited 89 times
    Holding completely preempted a common law duty to warn claim because it required “examining the parties' legal relationship and expectations as established by the CBA”

    However, "[s]uch a public policy . . . must be well defined and dominant, and is to be ascertained `by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.'" Id. ( quoting Muschany v. United States, 324 U.S. 49, 66, 65 S.Ct. 442, 89 L.Ed. 744 (1945)); see United Food Commercial Workers' Union Local 655 v. St. John's Mercy Health Sys., 448 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006) ("An award should of course not be enforced if it would violate some explicit public policy."). The Supreme Court has further instructed that "the public policy exception is narrow. . . ."

  2. Winfrey v. Simmons

    495 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2007)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming district court's rejection of challenge to arbitration award because petitioner produced "no evidence indicating that [one arbitrator's] partiality deceived or misled the other two arbitrators," so alleged partiality of one arbitrator worked no prejudice

    "The award must be confirmed so long as the arbitrator `is even arguably construing or applying the [agreement]' even if the court thinks that his interpretation of the agreement is in error." United Food Commercial Workers' Union Local 655 v. St. John's Mercy Health Sys., 448 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir.2006) (quoting United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987)) (alteration in United Food). Simmons argues that the district court should have vacated the award under the Federal Arbitration Act's provision that allows a court to vacate an award where one or more arbitrators had "evident partiality," 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(2).

  3. Meridian Med. Techs. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen

    4:23CV566 JAR (E.D. Mo. Sep. 12, 2024)

    Even if a court is convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error, the court must still confirm the award as long as the arbitrator “is even arguably construing or applying the contract.” Id.; see also, United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 655 v. St. John's Mercy Health Sys., 448 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006). Except in limited circumstances, a court must defer to the arbitrator's interpretation.

  4. Producers Agric. Ins. Co. v. Finneman

    5:22-CV-05062-KES (D.S.D. Jul. 9, 2024)

    Id. (quoting United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 655 v. St. John's Mercy Health Sys., 448 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006)).

  5. Teamsters Local Union No. 688 v. Meridian Med. Techs.

    Case No. 4:12CV472 CDP (E.D. Mo. Jan. 16, 2013)   Cited 1 times
    In Meridian Medical, the CBA at issue unambiguously required, prior to discharge, that the employer "give at least one warning notice of the complaint against such employee to the employee in writing" and also unambiguously provided "the warning notice as herein provided shall not remain in effect for a period of more than twelve (12) months from the date of said warning notice received."

    Indeed, even if a court is convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error, the court must still confirm the award as long as the arbitrator "is even arguably construing or applying the contract." United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987); see also United Food & Commercial Workers' Union Local 655 v. St. John's Mercy Health Sys., 448 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006). Within the specific context of the LMRA, a court cannot review the merits of the underlying dispute and is required to enforce the arbitrator's decision unless it fails to "draw[] its essence from the underlying collective bargaining agreement."

  6. Breckenridge O'Fallon v. Teamsters Union Local No. 682

    Case No. 4:09CV2005 CDP (E.D. Mo. Jan. 24, 2011)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Indeed, even if a court is convinced that the arbitrator committed serious error, the court must still confirm the award as long as the arbitrator "is even arguably construing or applying the agreement." See United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987); accord United Food Commercial Workers' Union Local No. 655 v. St. John's Mercy Health Sys., 448 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006). Within the specific context of the LMRA, a court cannot review the merits of the underlying dispute and is required to enforce the arbitrator's decision unless it fails to "draw[] its essence from the underlying collective bargaining agreement."

  7. Carlisle Power Trans. Prod. v. United Steel Workers

    Case No. 05-3569-CV-S-ODS (W.D. Mo. Jan. 11, 2007)

    II. DISCUSSION Judicial review of an arbitrator's decision is extremely limited. If the arbitrator is arguably construing or applying the collective bargaining agreement, a court may not set aside or amend the decision even if the court would have reached a different decision or is firmly convinced an error was made.E.g., United Food Commercial Workers' Union v. St. John's Mercy Health Sys., 448 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2006). An arbitrator's decision may be vacated "if the arbitrator ignored or disregarded the plain language of an unambiguous contract or nullified a provision of the contract."

  8. St. John's Mercy Health System v. Division of Employment Security

    273 S.W.3d 510 (Mo. 2009)   Cited 38 times
    Holding that an issue was not preserved for appeal where it was not raised before the Commission

    The district court entered summary judgment for the union and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.United Food Commercial Workers' Union Local No. 655 v. St. John's Mercy Health Systems, 448 F.3d 1030 (8th Cir. 2006). The third charge, in April 2004, alleged St. John's failed to bargain in good faith by not complying with the arbitration decisions.