Eastern Associated Coal Corp. v. Mine Workers - Opinion Announcement

Argument of Speaker

Mr. Speaker: The opinion of the Court in No. 99-1038, Eastern Associated Coal Corporation versus United Mine Workers, will be announced by Justice Breyer.

Argument of Justice Breyer

Mr. Breyer: Eastern Associated Coal Corporation has a collective bargaining agreement with the United Mine workers.

That agreement provides that Eastern must have “just cause” to dismiss a worker.

The agreement also provides for arbitration of disputes about “just what” constitutes “just cause”.

James Smith, a truck driver employed by Eastern twice failed drug testing for marijuana.

Eastern wanted to dismiss him, but each time an arbitrator imposed an alternative punishment upon Smith and then held, in light of that punishment, Eastern did not have “just cause” to dismiss Smith.

Eastern ask the court in effect the set-aside the arbitrator’s second reinstatement.

Eastern claims that on the arbitrator’s interpretation of the words “just cause” the contract is unenforceable, because if the contract requires it to reinstate a worker who failed drug tests twice the contract must violate public policy.

The Fourth Circuit rejected Eastern’s public policy argument.

Other courts in similar circumstances have reached the different conclusion.

We therefore agreed to review the matter.

Now, we agree that with Eastern that in principle a court might sometimes refuse to enforce an agreement on public policy grounds even if enforcement does not violate a positive law such as the statute, but that is as far as our agreement with Eastern guvs.

The public policy exception warranting non-enforcement of a labor arbitration award is narrow.

It is applicable only where the public policy that the contract violates is “explicit”, “well-defined”, “dominant” and “ascertain” by a reference to the laws and legal precedents, not from general considerations of supposed public interests.

Eastern’s drug testing of Smith is subject to a detailed statute and regulations governing the drug testing of transportation workers, that being so that is Congress and the Executive Branch both having spoken, courts must treat with particular caution, any plea to divine some further public policy beyond what the statute and regulations explicitly State.

Eastern is making just such a plea here, the statute and regulations do not explicitly forbid an employer to reinstate a worker who tests positives for drugs once or twice.

Indeed, as we read them they contemplate that reinstatement may take place after the worker has been rehabilitated.

Eastern claims that the arbitrator’s award violates the public policy underlying the statute the policy against drug use by workers in jobs that can propose a risk to others.

But that claim over simplifies the regulatory scheme, the actual statute in the regulations reveal several different relevant policies, including policies against drug use, policies favoring drug testing, policies favoring rehabilitation of those who failed tests and background policies favoring leaving disciplinary matters such as this one to employers and unions to decide to agreed upon arbitration.

We conclude that Smith’s reinstatement with a significant alternative punishment does not run contrary to these statutory and regulation based public policies taken together.

We spell our reasons out further, in our opinion.

We affirm the Fourth Circuit's similar determination.

Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment which Justice Thomas has joined.