First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
FIRST STUDENT, INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 959,
Respondent.
Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 ORDER
Before the Court is Petitioner First Student, Inc.’s (“First Student”) Motion for
Reconsideration or in the Alternative, for Clarification of the Court’s September 26,
2019 	Order 	at 	Docket 	48. 	The 	Court 	did 	not 	request 	a 	response 	from
Respondent.1
BACKGROUND
On September 26, 2019, this Court denied First Student’s Motion to Vacate
the Arbitration Award and confirmed the award.2 First Student now asks this Court
to reconsider its decision or, in the alternative, to provide clarification. First Student
contends that the Court “overlooked and/or omitted consideration of one of First
1 See Local Civil Rule 7.3(h).
2 Docket 46.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 49 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 5

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative, for Clarification
Page 2 of 5
Student’s arguments for relief.”3 Specifically, First Student asserts that the Court
did not consider its argument that “the Arbitration Award should be vacated
because Arbitrator Ford granted relief beyond her authority when she ordered that
Mr. Kuklis was entitled to any position available at any of First Student’s worksites
(irrespective 	of 	location 	or 	whether 	the 	worksite 	is 	represented 	by 	the
Teamsters.)”4 	According to First Student, “Arbitrator Ford’s interpretation of the
phrase ‘in the geographic area of the Local Union’ in Article 11 of the National
Agreement to include the entire state of Alaska and ‘the lower 48’ as well as non-
unionized worksites was a manifest error of law and irrational.”5
LEGAL STANDARD
Under 	this 	Court’s 	local 	rules, 	it 	will 	ordinarily 	deny 	a 	motion 	for
reconsideration absent a showing of “(A) manifest error of the law or fact; (B)
discovery of new material facts not previously available; or (C) intervening change
in law.”6 Reconsideration is “an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly and in
the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”7
DISCUSSION
3 Docket 48 at 2.
4 Id.
5 Id. (quoting the National Agreement).
6 Local Civil Rule 7.3(h)(1).
7 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 49 Filed 10/08/19 Page 2 of 5

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative, for Clarification
Page 3 of 5
An 	arbitrator’s 	“interpretation 	of 	a 	contract 	must 	be 	sustained 	if 	it 	is
‘plausible.’”8 	A court can vacate an arbitrator’s award where the decision is
“completely irrational” but “[t]his ‘standard is extremely narrow and is satisfied only
‘where [the arbitration decision] fails to draw its essence from the agreement.’”9
An “arbitration award ‘draws its essence from the agreement’ if the award is
derived from the agreement, viewed ‘in light of the agreement’s language and
context, as well as other indication of the parties’ intentions.’”10
First Student challenged Arbitrator Ford’s interpretation of the geographic
location provision of the agreement in its reply in support of its Motion to Vacate
the Arbitration Award.11 	In its September 26, 2019 order, the Court addressed
First Student’s contention that Arbitrator Ford exceeded her authority in granting
her award:
First Student’s final challenge is to the Arbitrator’s award of relief. First
Student contends that the relief granted in the form of wages that Mr.
Kuklis would have earned in the position available to him (if qualified)
in Alaska or the lower 48 in the time between his removal and his
termination 	‘is 	not 	the 	relief 	that 	is 	allowed 	under 	the 	parties’
agreement.’12
8 Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 933 F.2d 1481, 1486 (9th Cir. 1991)
(quoting Workers Int’l Ass’n v. Ariz. Mech. & Stainless, Inc., 863 F.2d 647, 653 (9th Cir.
1989)).
9 Bosack v. Soward, 586 F.3d 1096, 1106 (9th Cir. 2009) (alterations in original) (quoting
Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv W. Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1284 (9th Cir. 2009)).
10 Aspic Eng’g & Constr. Co. v. ECC Centcom Constructors LLC, 913 F.3d 1162, 1166
(9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Bosack, 586 F.3d at 1106).
11 See Docket 24 at 6.
12 Docket 46 at 30 (quoting Docket 4 at 19).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 49 Filed 10/08/19 Page 3 of 5

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative, for Clarification
Page 4 of 5
Because the Court found “that the arbitrator’s award of relief arose from her
reasonable interpretation of the National and Local agreements and her application
thereof to the facts as presented during the arbitration,” it declined to vacate the
decision or award.13 	Thus, the Court did not overlook First Student’s argument,
and declines to reconsider its September 26, 2019 order.
Nevertheless, for the sake of clarity, the Court will expand on its conclusion
as it relates to the geographic location provision of Article 11. 	Article 11 of the
National Agreement provides:
The 	Company 	will 	make 	every 	effort 	to 	place 	the 	employee 	in
substantially equivalent work within the bargaining unit serviced by
this Local Union or at another of the company’s locations for which
the driver is qualified, either of which should be in the geographic area
of the Local Union or in another mutually agreeable location.14
In her decision and award, Arbitrator Ford interpreted the portion of Article
11 governing geographic location.15 She concluded that the “employer must look
at the particular area covered by the Local Agreement” but “must also look to
‘another of the company’s locations . . . in the geographic area of the Local.’”16
She reasoned that “Local 959 services all of Alaska” and added that because “the
13 Id. at 31–32.
14 Docket 10-6 at 6.
15 Docket 10-9 at 13 (“The geographic extent of the Employer’s obligation to explore is
set out in the section.”).
16 Id. at 13 (quoting the National Agreement).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 49 Filed 10/08/19 Page 4 of 5

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion for Reconsideration or in the Alternative, for Clarification
Page 5 of 5
scope could include another ‘mutually agreeable location’ . . . the position offered
could be outside of Alaska.”17 	She reasoned that the mutual agreement clause
“should not be read to limit the Employer’s obligation to locate such positions.”18
Based on her interpretation of the language of the geographic location clause of
Article 11 of the National Agreement, Arbitrator Ford concluded that the Employer
should “examine all of the positions in Alaska and the lower 48 available during the
period between Mr. Kuklis’s removal and his discharge.”19
The Court finds that the arbitrator’s award draws its essence from the
agreement as it is firmly rooted in the agreement’s language; as such, it is not
“completely irrational.”
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, First Student’s Motion for Reconsideration of the
Court’s September 26, 2019 Order at Docket 48 is DENIED.
DATED this 8th day of October, 2019, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 15.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 49 Filed 10/08/19 Page 5 of 5