Summary
The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment upholding an arbitrator’s order reinstating an employee terminated by Meridian Medical Technologies for alleged dishonesty or falsification of training records. The court held that the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement, properly drew an adverse inference from Meridian’s failure to call relevant supervisors, and did not manifestly disregard the law. The court also rejected Meridian’s argument that reinstatement violated a well-defined and dominant public policy under federal drug and medical-device regulations.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by interpreting the collective bargaining agreement's undefined term "dishonesty" to require intentional deception.
- Whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority or manifestly disregarded the law by drawing an adverse inference from Meridian's failure to call Miller's direct supervisors and by allocating Meridian the burden of proving just cause.
- Whether reinstating Miller violated a well-defined and dominant public policy arising from the FDCA and FDA regulations governing the manufacture and training of employees who produce medical devices.
Holdings
- The arbitrator acted within his authority because the collective bargaining agreement did not define "dishonesty," making the term ambiguous and permitting the arbitrator to interpret it. The arbitrator's conclusion that dishonesty, falsification, or fraud requires an intent to deceive was an arguable interpretation of the agreement and therefore could not be overturned.
- The arbitrator did not manifestly disregard the law by assigning Meridian the burden of proving just cause or by drawing an adverse inference from Meridian's failure to call its two direct supervisors. Because Meridian bore the burden of proof and the supervisors were available and possessed pertinent information, the inference was legally permissible.
- Miller's reinstatement did not violate public policy because neither the FDCA nor the FDA regulations governing auto-injector training expressly forbade or restricted reinstatement for the procedural training violation found by the arbitrator. The asserted safety concerns were speculative and did not establish a well-defined and dominant public policy.
Key quotations
“The “scope of review of the arbitration award itself is among the narrowest known to the law.”” (5)
“The arbitrator acted within his authority in his arguable interpretation of the CBA’s terms.” (6)
“The public policy must also be established by existing law, “not from general considerations of supposed public interests.”” (9)
“A refusal to enforce an award must rest on more than speculation or assumption.” (10)
Factual background
Meridian manufactures emergency-use auto-injectors regulated by the FDA and employed Cherie A. Miller as a senior technician and qualified trainer. Meridian terminated Miller after she certified that a probationary employee completed five on-the-job training tasks in one day, asserting that the certifications were dishonest or falsified. The arbitrator found that Meridian's staffing shortages and workplace practices led employees to sign training documents contrary to the formal process, and found no intentional fraud or falsification by Miller. The arbitrator also drew an adverse inference against Meridian because it did not call Miller's two direct supervisors, who remained employed and possessed relevant information.
Procedural history
Meridian terminated employee Cherie A. Miller for allegedly fraudulent or falsified certification of on-the-job training records. The arbitrator ordered Miller reinstated with full seniority, benefits, and back pay, finding Meridian had not proved intentional fraud or falsification by a preponderance of the evidence. Meridian moved to vacate the award, but the district court granted the Union summary judgment and affirmed the award. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.