33 N.Y.2d 425 (1974)
An arbitrator’s decision should be upheld if it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement, even if the court disagrees with the arbitrator’s interpretation of the facts or the contract.
Summary
W.M. Girvan, Inc. (the employer) appealed a decision upholding an arbitration award that overturned the dismissal of two employees accused of dishonesty involving theft, instead imposing suspensions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the arbitrator acted within the scope of the broad arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement. The court reasoned that the arbitrator’s determination of whether “just cause” existed for discharge was the central issue, and the court should not disturb that conclusion, even if the arbitrator’s decision about whether the actions constituted “dishonesty involving theft” was questionable.
Facts
Two employees of W.M. Girvan, Inc. were observed transferring merchandise from the employer’s delivery truck to a station wagon owned by one of them.
The employer discharged the employees based on this conduct, claiming “dishonesty involving theft.”
The union protested the dismissals, leading to arbitration before a single arbitrator after waiving arbitration before a grievance committee.
Procedural History
The union challenged the employer’s decision, leading to an arbitration. The arbitrator set aside the dismissals but imposed periods of suspension without pay.
The employer applied to vacate the arbitration award. The lower court denied the application.
The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court’s decision. W.M. Girvan, Inc. appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by overturning the dismissal of the employees, when the employer argued their conduct constituted “dishonesty involving theft” which, under the agreement, allowed for immediate termination without warning.
Holding
No, because the arbitrator’s decision that “just cause” for discharge was not established was the central issue, and his decision should not be disturbed since the arbitration clause was very broad and the arbitrator’s decision drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.
Court’s Reasoning
The court emphasized the broad nature of the arbitration clause, which embraced “[g]rievances [not otherwise defined or limited] which cannot be settled between the parties.”
The court stated that the arbitrator’s role was to determine whether “just cause” existed for the discharge, a broad standard that the arbitrator resolved.
The court reasoned that whether the conduct involved “dishonesty for theft” was only relevant to whether the employer needed to give a warning notice, a point not raised by the union and not submitted to the arbitrator.
The court deferred to the arbitrator’s interpretation of the agreement and the facts, finding no basis to disturb the arbitrator’s conclusion that just cause for discharge was not established.
The dissenting opinion argued that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by requiring the employer to prove a “proven theft” rather than simply “dishonesty involving theft,” thus rewriting the agreement. The dissent also asserted that the arbitrator’s imposition of suspension instead of dismissal deviated from the agreement.
The dissent cited Steelworkers v. Enterprise Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 598 arguing the arbitrator substituted his own notion for the agreed words.
The majority did not address the dissent’s points directly, but instead, re-iterated the limited scope of judicial review of arbitration awards.