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 TO VACATE ARBITRATION AWARD AND CROSS-
MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION TO VACATE ARBITRATOR’S AWARD
Before the Court are Petitioner First Student, Inc.’s (“First Student”) Motion
to Vacate Arbitration Award at Docket 3 and Respondent International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Local 959’s (“Teamsters”) Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to
Vacate Arbitrator’s Award at Docket 14. 	Both motions have been fully briefed.1
Oral 	argument 	was 	not 	requested 	and 	was 	not 	necessary 	to 	the 	Court’s
determination.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from an arbitrator’s Decision and Award rendered on
September 28, 2018. 	Arbitrator Elizabeth Ford presided over a dispute between
1 Teamsters answered and moved to dismiss the Petition to Vacate at Docket 10. See
also Docket 14 (Motion to Dismiss). First Student opposed Teamsters’ Motion to
Dismiss at Dockets 23 and 24. Teamsters replied to First Student’s Response to the
Motion to Dismiss at Docket 32.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 1 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 2 of 32
Teamsters and First Student concerning First Student’s treatment of bus driver
John Kuklis after he was removed from his route at the request of the school district
he served. 	Arbitrator Ford ruled for Teamsters on behalf of Mr. Kuklis.2 	On
December 26, 2018, First Student filed this action to vacate the arbitration award.3
On February 20, 2019, Teamsters moved to dismiss the petition to vacate and
requested an order enforcing the arbitration award.4
FACTS
First 	Student 	and 	Teamsters 	are 	parties 	to 	a 	collective 	bargaining
agreement that governs the terms and conditions of employment for bus drivers
servicing schools on the Kenai Peninsula.5 	The parties are bound by two labor
agreements: 	(1) 	the 	National 	Master 	First 	Student 	Agreement 	(“National
2 See Docket 10-9 at 15 (Arbitrator’s Decision and Award).
3 Docket 3.
4 Docket 14. The Court’s resolution of these motions was delayed by the parties’
attempts to settle their dispute. Twice the parties sought (and were granted) a stay or
extension of time to attempt to resolve the dispute on their own. Docket 34 (Joint Motion
to Stay) and Docket 37 (Motion for Extension of Time to File Scheduling and Planning
Conference Report). When those efforts failed, the parties requested a settlement
conference with a judicial officer of the Court. Docket 39 at 6–7 (report of Rule 26(f)
planning meeting). The Honorable H. Russel Holland presided over a settlement
conference on September 6, 2019, however, the parties were unsuccessful in reaching
an agreement. Docket 45 (order re minutes for settlement conference).
5 See Docket 10-9 at 1.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 2 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 3 of 32
Agreement”)6 	and 	(2) 	the 	School 	Bus 	Drivers, 	Attendants, 	and 	Monitors
Agreement (“Local Agreement”)7.
The National Agreement is the main agreement between the parties. 	It
covers 	“operations 	in, 	between 	and 	over 	all 	of 	the 	states, 	territories 	and
possessions of the United States.”8 	By its own terms, the Local Agreement “is
supplemental 	to 	the 	Teamsters-First 	Student 	National 	Master 	Agreement.”9
Pursuant to both agreements, employees are guaranteed the superior conditions
offered in either agreement. 	The National Agreement states that “[i]t is the intent
of the parties that generally negotiated terms and conditions of employment will be
set forth in the National Agreement and that any locally negotiated conditions
generally 	will 	be 	narrowly 	limited 	in 	scope 	to 	locally 	negotiated 	economic
provisions and local terms and conditions of employment.”10 	It adds that “any
lesser conditions contained in any Supplement, Rider or Addendum hereto shall
be superseded by the conditions contained in this National Agreement. However,
6 Throughout the briefing, Teamsters refers to the National Agreement as the NMA and
the Local Agreement as the LA while First Student refers to the National Agreement as
such and the Local Agreement as the CBA. For clarity, the Court uses the same terms
used by Arbitrator Ford in her Decision and Award.
7 Docket 1 at 3 (Complaint/Motion to Vacate); see also Docket 10 at 3 (Answer/Motion
to Dismiss).
8 Docket 10-6 at 2 (National Agreement).
9 Docket 10-5 at 3 (Local Agreement).
10 Docket 10-6 at 3.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 3 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 4 of 32
nothing in this National Agreement shall deprive any employee of any superior
benefit or term contained in their Supplement, Rider or Addendum.”11 	Similarly,
the 	Local 	Agreement 	specifies 	that 	“any lesser 	conditions 	contained 	in 	this
supplement shall be superseded by the conditions contained in the National
Master Agreement” but adds that “nothing in the National Master Agreement shall
deprive 	any 	employee 	of 	any 	superior 	benefit 	or 	term 	contained 	in 	this
supplement.”12
I. 	Employee Removal and Grievance Policies
Relevant to the parties’ dispute here, both agreements contain provisions
governing employee removal and grievances. 	Specifically, both contemplate the
situation at hand wherein a bus driver was removed from his route at the school
district’s request.
The National Agreement details the procedure for employee removal in
Article 11:
If the Company is required to remove a driver from a route at the
School District’s request, the Company agrees to discuss the matter
with the School District as soon as practical to attempt to adjust or
resolve the issue and will seek permission of the client to invite the
Union 	to 	participate 	in 	such 	discussions. 	If 	the 	School 	District
maintains its position on the removal of the driver, the Company will
meet with the Union to discuss the status of the driver. The Union will
be given a copy of the directive requiring the removal of the driver
where appropriate. If the directive is not in writing, the Company will
11 Id.
12 Docket 10-5 at 3.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 4 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 5 of 32
request the School District provide a written directive setting forth the
reason for the removal. 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.”13
The Local Agreement also addresses employee removal at the request of a
school district. 	Article 14, Section 14.01 lists “a notice to remove an employee
from performing service in accordance with the District’s revenue contract” as a
serious infraction in which case the employee “may be utilized for other work
outside of the revenue agreement or any work under the revenue contract to the
extent allowed by the District’s restrictions, if there is work available and the
employee is qualified for such work.”14
Both agreements also provide a process for grievances culminating in
arbitration. In the National Agreement, Article 42 establishes a joint national
grievance 	review 	committee 	(“JNGRC”) 	made 	up 	of 	an 	equal 	number 	of
representatives from each party to “consider and resolve disputes of national or
regional significance” and to “review such disputes prior to the submission of the
matter to the final authority for resolution (whether an arbitrator or a panel) set forth
13 Docket 10-6 at 6 (emphasis added).
14 Docket 10-5 at 11.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 5 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 6 of 32
in 	the 	local 	agreement 	out 	of 	which 	the 	dispute 	arises 	or 	this 	National
Agreement.”15
The JNGRC functions “with the same authority as a neutral arbitrator or
mediator” and has the authority “to issue final and binding decisions.”16 	The
National Agreement provides that “[u]nresolved disputes arising from the National
Agreement shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration upon written notice
from either party.”17 	In the event of a deadlock wherein the “provisions of the
National Master, FO or other company policies, are central to the dispute (Articles
1 through 49) such dispute shall be submitted to a mutually agreeable neutral
arbitrator for final and binding resolution.”18 Article 42 of the National Agreement
adds that “[t]he dispute resolution machinery contained in local riders, addenda or
supplements do not have authority to interpret the provisions of the National
Master (Articles 1 through 49) without the consent of the Employer and the
National Union Committee.”19
The 	Local 	Agreement’s 	grievance 	procedure 	is 	detailed 	in 	Article 	14.
Section 	14.02 	defines 	a 	grievance 	as 	“disputes 	or 	differences 	between 	the
15 Docket 10-6 at 11.
16 Id. at 12.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 6 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 7 of 32
Company and the Union . . . with respect to interpretation or application of any
specific provision of this Agreement.”20 	In the event of a grievance, the Local
Agreement provides a detailed procedure if informal resolution fails.21 	The third
and final step in the process is arbitration. The “parties agree that the decision or
award of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on each of the parties and that
they will abide thereby, subject to such laws, rules, and regulations as may be
applicable.”22
Per the terms of the Local Agreement, the “arbitrator shall render a written
decision and award within thirty (30) days from the close of the hearing or the
submission of briefs.”23 	And the authority of the arbitrator “shall be limited to
determining questions directly involving the interpretation of applications of the
specific provisions of this Agreement, and no other matter shall be subject to
arbitration there under [sic].”24 The Local Agreement limits the arbitrator’s powers,
providing that she “shall have no authority to add to, subtract from or to change
20 Docket 10-5 at 13.
21 See id. at 13–14.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 7 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 8 of 32
any of the terms of this Agreement . . . [or] to base any decision on any practice or
custom which is inconsistent with any provision of this Agreement.”25
II. 	The Proceedings Between the Parties
The parties’ dispute arises from an arbitration decision and award rendered
by Arbitrator Elizabeth Ford on September 26, 2018.26 The arbitration concerned
First Student’s treatment of its employee, John Kuklis. In response to a complaint
from a school district, First Student removed Mr. Kuklis from his bus route on March
24, 2017.27 	He remained on the payroll for several weeks and attended safety
meetings but did not perform any additional work.28 	On May 8, 2017, Mr. Kuklis
was terminated by First Student as a result of an incident involving another
employee.29
As summarized in the Arbitrator’s decision and award, Teamsters initiated a
grievance on Mr. Kuklis’s behalf, alleging a violation of the National Agreement.30
Specifically, Teamsters alleged that “First Student, Inc. [h]as not made an effort to
provide work to Mr. Kuklis as described under Article 11 of the National Master
25 Docket 10-5 at 14.
26 See Docket 1 at 5.
27 See Docket 10-9 at 2.
28 See Docket 1 at 4; Docket 10-9 at 7.
29 See id.
30 See Docket 10-9 at 2.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 8 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 9 of 32
First Student Agreement” and grieved “under any other articles/sections that may
apply of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between First Student, Inc. –
Kenai, and the Teamsters Local 959 and any other articles/section that may apply
of the First [S]tudent National Master Agreement.”31
First Student denied the grievance. 	The parties met to try to resolve their
dispute, but Teamsters ultimately submitted a request to the JNGRC “seeking
review of this issue prior to arbitration.”32 	On November 7, 2017, the JNGRC
issued a decision concluding that “the dispute is hereby remanded to the parties
for resolution under their local dispute resolution procedures. The parties may rely
on 	the 	language 	of 	both 	their 	local 	agreements 	as 	well 	as 	the 	National
Agreement.”33 	The parties agreed to arbitration of the issue and a hearing was
held before Arbitrator Elizabeth Ford on June 20, 2018.34
The arbitrator framed the issue as a question: “Did First Student violate the
National Agreement and/or the Local Agreement in its response to the Kenai
Peninsula Borough School District’s March 24 requirement that Mr. Kuklis be
removed from District service? If so, what is the appropriate remedy?”35 	The
31 Id.
32 Id. at 2–3.
33 Id. at 3.
34 See id.
35 Id. at 4.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 9 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 10 of 32
parties submitted briefs on July 31, 2018, and a decision was rendered on
September 26, 2018.36
In her decision and award, Arbitrator Ford concluded that both the Local
Agreement and National Agreement applied to the dispute and that the Local
Agreement “explicitly defers to the National Agreement in this case since the
National Agreement contains benefits superior to the Local Agreement.”37 	Over
First Student’s objection to her authority to interpret the National Agreement,
Arbitrator Ford interpreted provisions of the National Agreement alongside the
JNGRC’s 	directive 	to 	conclude 	that 	she 	“ha[d] 	authority 	to 	interpret 	either
agreement, or both.”38 	Specifically, she explained that the National Agreement
created the JNGRC “to consider issues of national or regional significance,” and
that it “presume[d] ultimate resolution by a national or local arbitrator.”39
Having concluded that the National Agreement applied to the dispute,
Arbitrator Ford relied on Article 11, which provides that “[t]he 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 the geographic
36 See id. at 3, 15.
37 Id. at 11.
38 Id. at 11–12.
39 Id. at 12 (emphasis in original).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 10 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 11 of 32
area of the Local Union or in another mutually agreeable location.”40 	She
concluded that First Student “must make ‘every’ effort” and “must explore all
options” available to Mr. Kuklis.41 	Arbitrator Ford explained that it was the
“employer’s obligation to make the effort,” not the employee’s, and that First
Student must look to the area covered by the Local Agreement but also to any of
the other company’s locations (in Alaska), or any “mutually agreeable location” in
the contiguous United States.42 	Arbitrator Ford credited evidence “that the
Employer did not explore any options outside of the Kenai Peninsula” and that had
it done so, “it would have discovered available driver positions” elsewhere.43 She
also found that Mr. Kuklis would be qualified for “another driving job.”44
Arbitrator Ford concluded that First Student had “violated the collective
bargaining agreement by failing to make every effort to locate and place the
grievant in substantially equivalent work.”45 She ordered First Student to examine
all positions available to Mr. Kuklis in Alaska and the lower 48 states during the
40 Id. at 12–13.
41 Id. at 13.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 13, 14.
44 Id. at 14.
45 Id. at 15.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 11 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 12 of 32
time between his removal and his discharge.46 	If Mr. Kuklis would have been
qualified for any such position (i.e., if there was a driver position available), then
First Student was ordered to pay him damages equal to the wages he could have
earned in that position for the time between his removal and discharge.47 	She
ordered First Student to share its findings on such positions with Teamsters within
thirty days.48
First Student did not comply with the order, and now petitions this Court to
vacate the arbitrator’s decision and award.49
LEGAL STANDARD
I. 	Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to § 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act (“LMRA”),50 which provides federal district courts with
original jurisdiction over any lawsuit “for violation of contracts between an employer
and 	a 	labor 	organization 	representing 	employees 	in 	an 	industry 	affecting
commerce.” 51
46 See id.
47 See id.
48 See id.
49 See Docket 1 and Docket 10-2 at 6.
50 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).
51 The parties contend that the Court also has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to
Section 10 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 10. See Docket 1 at 1 and Docket
10 at 1. However, Section 10 of the FAA “does not create federal question jurisdiction
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 12 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 13 of 32
II. 	Standard for Vacating Arbitration Award
The Court’s scope of “review of an arbitration award is greatly limited” as
“arbitration is an encouraged method of dispute resolution.”52 “[C]ourts reviewing
labor arbitration awards afford a ‘nearly unparalleled degree of deference’ to the
arbitrator's 	decision.”53 	“This 	deference 	applies 	both 	to 	the 	arbitrator’s
interpretation of the parties’ agreement and to [her] findings of fact.”54
The United States Supreme Court has held that “a court should not reject
an award on the ground that the arbitrator misread the contract.”55 	Accordingly,
“even if [a court] were convinced that the arbitrator misread the contract or erred
in interpreting it, such a conviction would not be a permissible ground for vacating
‘even when the underlying arbitration involves a federal question.’” Carter v. Health Net
of California, Inc., 374 F.3d 830, 835 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Luong v. Circuit City
Stores, Inc., 368 F.3d 1109, 1111 (9th Cir. 2004)). “Unlike the FAA or state arbitration
statutes, the LMRA can be used as a basis for federal question jurisdiction over actions
to compel arbitration, as well as petitions to confirm or vacate arbitration awards.”
Carter, 374 F.3d at 835. The Court may also have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1332. The amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is
satisfied by the amount at stake in the dispute. See Theis Research, Inc. v. Brown &
Bain, 386 F.3d 1180, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). Here, neither party has provided an amount-
in-controversy.
52 U.S. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat. Ins. Co., 591 F.3d 1167, 1172 (9th Cir. 2010).
53 Sw. Reg'l Council of Carpenters v. Drywall Dynamics, Inc., 823 F.3d 524, 530 (9th Cir.
2016) (quoting Stead Motors of Walnut Creek v. Auto. Machinists Lodge No. 1173, Int’l
Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 886 F.2d 1200, 1204–05 (9th Cir. 1989) (en
banc)).
54 Sw. Reg'l Council of Carpenters, 823 F.3d at 530 (citing Stead Motors of Walnut
Creek, 886 F.2d at 1207).
55 United Paperworkers Int’l Union, AFL–CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 38 (1987).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 13 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 14 of 32
the award.”56 The arbitrator’s “interpretation of a contract must be sustained if it is
‘plausible.’”57 And since “[t]he parties did not bargain for the facts to be found by
a court, but by an arbitrator chosen by them,” “[i]mprovident, even silly, factfinding
. . . is hardly a sufficient basis for disregarding what the agent appointed by the
parties determined to be the historical facts.”58
Notwithstanding 	this 	high 	degree 	of 	deference, 	“there 	are 	limited
circumstances in which the vacatur of a labor arbitration award is justified.”59
Those circumstances include:
(1) when the award does not draw its essence from the collective
bargaining agreement and the arbitrator is dispensing [her] own
brand of industrial justice; (2) where the arbitrator exceeds the
boundaries of the issues submitted to [her]; (3) when the award is
contrary to public policy; or (4) when the award is procured by
fraud.60
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
56 Sw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters, 823 F.3d at 530 (quoting Va. Mason Hosp. v. Wash.
State Nurses Ass’n, 511 F.3d 908, 913–14 (9th Cir. 2007)).
57 Employers Ins. of Wausau v. National Union Fire. Ins. Co., 933 F.2d 1481, 1486 (9th
Cir. 1991).
58 Sw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters, 823 F.3d at 530 (quoting United Paperworkers Int'l
Union, AFL–CIO, 484 U.S. at 39, 45) (alterations in Sw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters).
59 Sw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters, 823 F.3d at 530.
60 Id.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 14 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 15 of 32
context, as well as other indications of the parties’ intentions.”61 Vacating an award
because it “fails to draw its essence” from the parties agreement requires a finding
that “there is no basis in the record for the arbitrator’s decision.”62 	Likewise, an
arbitrator exceeds her powers when her decision is “completely irrational” or
exhibits a “manifest disregard of law.”63 	To vacate an arbitration award on this
basis, “[i]t must be clear from the record that the arbitrators recognized the
applicable law and then ignored it.”64
The Ninth Circuit has clarified that while the formulation of the exceptions to
the rule of deference to arbitration awards has often varied, the “underlying rule
has remained unchanged.”65 	Courts “overturn an arbitrator’s award only when it
is clear from the arbitral opinion or award that the arbitrator did not base [her]
decision on an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement or that [she]
disregarded what the parties put before [her] and instead followed [her] own whims
or biases.”66
61 Lagstein v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 607 F.3d 634, 642 (9th Cir. 2010).
62 Comedy Club, Inc. v. Improv West Assocs., 553 F.3d 1277, 1288 (9th Cir. 2009).
63 Kyocera Corp. v. Prudential-Bache T. Servs., 341 F.3d 987, 997 (9th Cir. 2003).
64 Mich. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Unigard Sec. Ins. Co., 44 F.3d 826, 832 (9th Cir. 1995).
65 Garvey v. Roberts, 203 F.3d 580, 588 (9th Cir. 2000) (footnote omitted).
66 Id.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 15 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 16 of 32
DISCUSSION
The Court considered whether any of the grounds advanced by First Student
provides a basis for vacatur. The “burden of establishing grounds for vacating an
arbitration award is on the party seeking it.”67 	For the reasons described below,
the Court finds First Student has not satisfied that burden and the Court will not
vacate the arbitration award.
I. 	The Timing of the Arbitrator’s Award is Not a Basis for Vacatur
First Student contends that the arbitrator’s award is invalid because it was
issued late.68 	First Student asserts that pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the
arbitrator was required to issue an award within 30 days of either the close of the
hearing or submission of the parties’ briefs.69 According to First Student, because
“the hearing in the underlying matter closed on July 20, 2018 and the parties[]
submitted their briefs on or about July 31, 2018,” the agreement required the
arbitrator to issue an award on or before August 30.70 However, a signed copy of
the award was not sent to the parties until September 27, 2018.71 	Accordingly,
67 U.S. Life Ins. Co., 591 F.3d at 1173.
68 See Docket 4 at 8; see also Docket 23 at 2–5.
69 See Docket 4 at 8; Docket 23 at 2; Docket 1-1 at 15.
70 Docket 23 at 2.
71 See Docket 1-4 at 1.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 16 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 17 of 32
First Student contends that “the Arbitrator’s jurisdiction in this manner expired on
August 30, 2018.”72
The Ninth Circuit considered an analogous argument in McKesson Corp. v.
Local 150 IBT.73 In that case, an employer brought an action seeking to vacate an
award directing the employer to reinstate an employee.74 	The employer argued
that “the arbitrator’s failure to render a decision within sixty days of submission of
the grievance, as provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, rendered the
award void.”75 The Ninth Circuit disagreed:
In the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, procedural
questions are submitted to the arbitrator, either explicitly or implicitly,
along with the merits of the dispute. 	The question of the authority of
the arbitrator to issue an award after the sixty day period involves just
such a procedural matter. 	McKesson's contention that the time limit
is jurisdictional in nature and may not be submitted to the arbitrator is
in error. Courts have uniformly held that limitations on the time in
72 Docket 23 at 2.
73 969 F.2d 831 (9th Cir. 1992).
74 See id. at 832.
75 Id. at 833–34.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 17 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 18 of 32
which 	an 	arbitrator 	may 	render 	an 	award 	are 	procedural 	not
jurisdictional.76
The Court finds McKesson dispositive. The arbitrator’s decision to issue an
award after the thirty-day period “involve[d] . . . a procedural matter” that was
submitted to the arbitrator along with the merits of the dispute.77
Neither of the cases cited by First Student compels a different conclusion as
timeliness was not at issue in those cases. 	In Western Canada S.S. Co. v. Cia.
De Nav. San Leonardo, the district court vacated an arbitration award rendered by
two 	arbitrators 	because 	the 	agreement 	required 	three.78 	And 	in 	Western
Employers Insurance Co. v. Jefferies & Co., the Ninth Circuit vacated an arbitration
award because the arbitration panel failed “to provide Western with findings of
facts and conclusions of law” as required by the parties’ agreement.79
In both cases, the disregarded provision was substantive—it went to the
heart of the arbitrator’s appointment or to her duty to provide support for her
conclusions. While the time limit provision here was agreed to by the parties, the
76 Id. at 834 (internal citations omitted).
77 Id.
78 105 F. Supp. 452, 453 (S.D.N.Y. 1952) (“The arbitrators in the instance case . . . have
exceeded their powers since any number less than the entire panel does not constitute
the tribunal authorized to hear the allegations and proofs of the parties.”).
79 958 F.2d 258, 262 (9th Cir. 1992).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 18 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 19 of 32
Ninth Circuit has held such provisions are among those that the arbitrator could
determine were “precatory and did not limit [her] authority.”80
Accordingly, vacatur is not appropriate on this basis.
II. 	The Arbitrator Did Not Exceed Her Powers in Applying Provisions of
the National Agreement
First Student challenges the Arbitrator’s “jurisdiction to interpret the National
Agreement.”81 	Specifically, First Student contends that the “language in the
National Agreement specifies that the arbitrator does not have authority to interpret
any language in the National Agreement without the consent of First Student and
the Union,” and that any interpretation of the National Agreement must go through
its “own dispute resolution procedure” from an “arbitrator selected in conformity
with it.”82 First Student adds that the meaning of the “make every effort” clause in
Article 11 of the National Agreement falls “outside the defined issues the parties
agree to submit to the grievance process.”83 First Student maintains that it “did not
agree to arbitrate language in the National Agreement.”84
Teamsters responds that the parties intended the agreements “to apply
concurrently” and credits the arbitrator’s interpretation of the two dispute resolution
80 McKesson Corp., 969 F.2d at 834.
81 Docket 4 at 9.
82 Id.
83 Id. at 10.
84 Id.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 19 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 20 of 32
procedures and her conclusion that “should superior provisions in the [National
Agreement] exist, they would apply over the lesser on the [Local Agreement].”85
Teamsters also highlights the JNGRC’s directive that “[t]he parties may rely on the
language of both their local agreements as well as the National Agreement.”86
Undisputedly, the subject of the arbitration was Mr. Kuklis’s grievance
concerning First Student’s treatment of him after his removal from his bus route.
Neither party contests the arbitrator’s jurisdiction over that grievance. 87 It was the
subject of the claim submitted to the JNGRC, the issue remanded for resolution by
local dispute resolution procedures, and the focus of the arbitrator’s decision and
award.88
Accordingly, 	the 	question 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	whether 	Arbitrator 	Ford
exceeded her powers in determining the scope of the submission before her.
Specifically, did she err in applying the “make every effort” clause of Article 11 of
the National Agreement in resolving Mr. Kuklis’s grievance in light of express
restrictions on her powers including: 	(1) the National Agreement’s language that
“the 	dispute 	resolution 	machinery 	contained 	in 	local 	riders, 	addenda 	or
supplements do not have the authority to interpret the provisions of the National
85 Docket 15 at 2, 4–5.
86 Id. at 5.
87 See Docket 10-9 at 3; see also Docket 1 at 5.
88 See Docket 10-9 at 2–4.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 20 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 21 of 32
Master (Articles 1 through 49) without the consent of the Employer and the
National Union Committee” and (2) the Local Agreement’s language that “the
authority of the arbitrator shall be limited to determining questions directly involving
the interpretation or applications of the specific provisions of this Agreement, and
no other matter shall be subject to arbitration there under [sic].”89
An “arbitrator’s authority is limited . . . by the principle that where an arbitrator
‘exceeds the boundary of the submission to [her], the award will be held invalid.’”90
The Ninth Circuit first addressed the standard by which a “federal court should
review an arbitrator’s determination of [her] own authority as defined by the
submitted issue” in Pack Concrete, Inc. v. Cunningham.91 There, the Circuit held
that “an arbitrator’s interpretation of the scope of the issue submitted to [her] is
entitled to the same deference accorded [her] interpretation of the [agreement].”92
Thus, the same nearly “unparalleled degree of deference” afforded to an
arbitrator’s decision extends to her interpretation of her authority and of the scope
of the issue; both are entitled to “great deference.”93 Indeed, “doubts concerning
89 Docket 10-6 at 6 and Docket 10-5 at 14.
90 Pack Concrete, Inc. v. Cunningham, 866 F.2d 283, 285 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting La
Mirada Trucking v. Teamsters Local Union 166, 538 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1976)).
91 866 F.2d 283 (9th Cir. 1989).
92 Id. at 285.
93 See United States Life Ins. Co., 591 F.3d at 1178–79 (“The arbitrator’s interpretation
of the scope of the issue must be upheld so long as it is rationally derived from the
parties’ submission.”).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 21 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 22 of 32
the scope of arbitrable issues should be resolved in favor of arbitration, whether
the problem at hand is the construction of the contract language itself or an
allegation of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability.”94
The 	“scope 	of 	the 	arbitrator’s 	authority 	is 	determined 	by 	the 	contract
requiring arbitration as well as by the parties’ definition of the issues to be
submitted in the submission agreement.”95 “An arbitrator does not exceed [her]
authority if the decision is a ‘plausible interpretation’ of the arbitration contract.”96
The Court will not reverse Arbitrator Ford’s findings on the basis that she “misread
the contract” even if it were convinced that she “erred in interpreting it.”97
The Court’s review of Arbitrator Ford’s decision and award confirms that she
considered the language of the agreements and the intent of the parties in
interpreting the scope of her authority. Where, as here, an arbitrator is required to
interpret multiple, arguably conflicting provisions, courts ask only “whether the
arbitrator interpreted the collective bargaining agreement, not whether [she] did so
correctly.”98
94 Republic of Nicaragua v. Standard Fruit Co., 937 F.2d 469, 478–79 (9th Cir. 1991)
(citing Moses H. Cone Mem’l Hosp. v. Mercury Const. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 24–5 (1983)).
95 Schoenduve Corp. v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 442 F.3d 727, 732 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing
Piggly Wiggly Operators’ Warehouse, Inc. v. Piggly Wiggly Operators’ Warehouse
Indep. Truck Drivers Union, Local No. 1, 611 F.2d 580, 583–84 (5th Cir. 1980)).
96 U.S. Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Nat. Ins. Co., 591 F.3d 1167, 1177 (9th Cir. 2010).
97 Sw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters, 823 F.3d at 530 (quoting Va. Mason Hosp. v. Wash.
State Nurses Ass’n, 511 F.3d 908, 913–14 (9th Cir. 2007)).
98 Hawaii Teamsters & Allied Workers Union, Local 996 v. UPS, 241 F.3d 1177, 1178 (9th
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 22 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 23 of 32
The National and Local Agreements make up a single bargaining unit
between the parties.99 	Although both agreements contain language limiting the
arbitrator’s 	role 	under 	the 	Local 	Agreement, 	Arbitrator 	Ford 	relied 	on 	her
interpretation of the provisions of the agreements as a whole, along with the
JNGRC’s 	directive, 	to 	conclude 	that 	she 	“ha[d] 	authority 	to 	interpret 	either
agreement, or both” and thus to apply the “make every effort” standard from the
National Agreement in her decision and award.100 She did not disregard the terms
of the agreements but disagreed with First Student’s interpretation of them.
For example, she relied on provisions of the Local and National Agreements
to conclude that “the Local Agreement is supplemental to the National Agreement
and explicitly defers to the National Agreement in this case since the National
Agreement contains benefits superior to the Local Agreement.”101 She also relied
on the National Agreement’s establishment of the JNGRC and its ability to
“consider and resolve disputes involving issues of national or regional significance”
and its resolution by “national or local arbitrator.”102
Cir. 2001) (emphases in original).
99 See Docket 10-6 at 3 (“The printing of this National Agreement and the various local
agreements, supplements and/or riders in separate agreements is for convenience only
and is not intended to create separate bargaining units.”).
100 Docket 10-9 at 12–15.
101 Id. at 11.
102 Id. at 12 (emphasis in original).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 23 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 24 of 32
The arbitrator’s conclusion that these provisions permit her to apply the
arguably more favorable “make every effort” standard of the National Agreement
is not only plausible, it is reasonable. By their terms, the agreements are intended
to function together, and each guarantees that employees should be awarded the
“superior benefit” of either one.103 	The parties intended—as reflected in both
agreements—that removal of a bus driver from a route and the employer’s
treatment 	of 	that 	employee 	thereafter 	be 	arbitrable 	under 	one 	or 	both
agreements.104 	Indeed, the issue was submitted first to the JNGRC under the
terms of the National Agreement and then referred by the JNGRC to local
arbitration.105 	The JNGRC could have decided the matter itself, or could have
referred it to arbitration outside of the local dispute resolution procedures.106
Furthermore, given that the grievance submitted to the JNGRC was framed
as a failure to “provide work to Mr. Kuklis as described under Article 11 of the
National [Agreement]” and given JNGRC’s directive to consider “the language of
both their local agreement as well as the National Agreement,” it was reasonable
for the arbitrator to conclude that she had authority to interpret and apply the
103 Id. at 5.
104 Compare 10-5 at 11 with 10-6 at 6.
105 See Docket 10-9, at 3; see also Docket 1 at 5.
106 See Docket 10-6 at 12.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 24 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 25 of 32
National Agreement.107 Indeed, although First Student asserts that “[b]y specifying
local 	dispute 	resolution 	procedures, 	the 	directive 	was 	that 	the 	Arbitrator’s
jurisdiction was limited to the terms of the CBA and not to interpret undefined terms
in the National Agreement,” such a conclusion is directly at odds with the JNGRC’s
directive and the plain language of Teamsters’ grievance.108
Because the Court finds that Arbitrator Ford’s interpretation of the scope of
the issue for arbitration was plausible and was based on the language of the
agreements and the directive of the parties, it concludes that she did not exceed
her powers. The Court will defer to Arbitrator Ford’s interpretation of the scope of
the issue for arbitration.
None of the three cases relied on by First Student for its jurisdictional
argument compels a different finding.
In Roadmaster Corp. v. Laborers, Local 504, the Seventh Circuit vacated an
arbitrator’s award where he ignored the terms of the contract and based his
decision on statutory law.109 	In Avis Rent A Car System v. Garage Employees
107 Docket 10-9 at 2–3.
108 The parties may have consented to the arbitrator’s interpretation of the National
Agreement through the directives of their representatives on the JNGRC. First Student
now disputes that consent was given. See Docket 4 at 9; see also Docket 23 at 3 n.6.
The record before the Court is insufficient to draw a conclusion.
109 851 F.2d 886, 889 (7th Cir. 1988) (“When a contract . . . specifically limits an
arbitrator’s subject matter jurisdiction, the arbitrator should restrict his consideration to
the contract, even if such a decision conflicts with federal statutory law.”).
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 25 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 26 of 32
Union, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s enforcement of an arbitration
award as the arbitrator “had no authority to interpret that agreement, because his
appointment did not conform to it.”110 In both cases, the arbitrator clearly exceeded
his authority: in Roadmaster, the arbitrator applied law that conflicted with the
contract; in Avis, he relied on his jurisdiction under one agreement to apply an
unrelated agreement under which he was not appointed. 	Arbitrator Ford did
neither.
First Student’s third case, Laborers’ International Union v. W.W. Bennett
Constr. Co., is inapposite. 	There, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s
ruling that an employer was bound to arbitrate an issue with a union per their
collective bargaining agreement even though other parties involved in the dispute
(including 	a 	subcontractor) 	were 	non-signatories 	and 	were 	not 	bound 	to
arbitrate.111 Here, both parties to the agreement participated in the arbitration.
III. 	The Arbitrator’s Decision on the Merits is Entitled to Deference
The remainder of First Student’s arguments in favor of vacatur challenge
Arbitrator Ford’s conclusions on the merits.112 	“Review of the merits of an
arbitration award is extremely limited,” and absent evidence that her decision is
“completely irrational” or a “manifest disregard of law,” the Court will not disturb
110 791 F.2d 22, 25 (2d Cir. 1986).
111 686 F.2d 1267, 1270 (7th Cir. 1982).
112 See Docket 4 at 11–19.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 26 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 27 of 32
her findings on either.113 Even erroneous findings of fact are not sufficient bases
to vacate an award.114
First Student challenges the merits of the arbitrator’s award on three bases:
(1) her award conflicts with the governing Local Agreement; (2) the arbitrator
misinterpreted 	the 	National 	Agreement; 	and 	(3) 	the 	arbitrator 	exceeded 	her
authority in issuing the award. 	For the reasons below, the Court finds that First
Student fails to provide a reason to vacate the arbitration award.
A. 	The Arbitrator Was Within Her Powers in Applying the National
Agreement
First Student first asserts that “by misapplying the National Agreement
instead of the [Local Agreement], the Arbitrator . . . created a manifest error of
law.”115 	Specifically, it alleges that the arbitrator’s conclusion that First Student
“fail[ed] to make every effort to locate and place the grievant with substantially
equivalent work” is inconsistent with the Local Agreement’s mandate that the
employees 	“may 	be 	utilized” 	for 	available 	work 	for 	which 	the 	employee 	is
qualified.116 	First Student contends that the word “may” gives it the option to
decline to use Mr. Kuklis for work without violating the Local Agreement.117 It cites
113 Schoenduve Corp., 442 F.3d at 735.
114 See Sw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters, 823 F.3d at 530.
115 Docket 4 at 11.
116 Id.
117 See id. at 12.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 27 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 28 of 32
case law for the proposition that the “Arbitrator must defer to the employer’s
management right to operate its business.”118 	Additionally, it points to evidence
purportedly showing there was no work available for Mr. Kuklis.119 	First Student
also relies on the Local Agreement’s provisions on bidding and seniority to
challenge the arbitrator’s conclusion that its actions violated the Local Agreement
and disputes the sufficiency of the evidence provided by Teamsters on either.120
Based on the above, First Student concludes that “[h]ad the Arbitrator applied the
foregoing plain language of the [Local Agreement] and applied it to the evidence,
she would have concluded that First Student had done nothing wrong.”121
Each of these assertions is a corollary of First Student’s position that
Arbitrator Ford was restricted to applying provisions of the Local Agreement in
evaluating Mr. Kuklis’s grievance, i.e., since the Local Agreement necessarily
governs, the arbitrator’s award arising from application of the National Agreement
is irrational. For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that Arbitrator Ford did
not exceed her powers in applying the National Agreement; therefore, First
Student’s assertion that the award is irrational under the Local Agreement fails to
provide grounds for vacatur.
118 Id. at 13.
119 Id. at 12.
120 Id.
121 Docket 4 at 13.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 28 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 29 of 32
B. 	The Arbitrator’s Interpretation of the National Agreement and Her
Findings of Fact Were Plausible and Reasonable
First Student’s second argument is in the alternative: even assuming the
National Agreement governs, it claims the arbitrator “misapplied [it] to the facts
here.”122 Specifically, First Student alleges that the National Agreement “does not
impose a greater obligation on First Student” than the Local Agreement and that
Teamsters “failed to provide any evidence to support that position.”123
First 	Student 	asserts 	that 	the 	National 	Agreement 	only 	requires 	the
employer to “make every effort” in “specific circumstances,” i.e., where there is
“substantially equivalent work,” where the driver is “qualified for work with in [sic]
the bargaining unit or at another location,” and where the work is in a “mutually
agreeable location.”124 	First Student asserts that Teamsters failed to provide
evidence that “any of these elements existed in this case.” 125 	Additionally, First
Student points to provisions of the National Agreement governing management’s
“authority to determine the qualifications of employees” and management’s “full
and exclusive control of assignments and the right to transfer employees” as
evidence that these decisions are within First Student’s exclusive control.126
122 Id. at 14.
123 Id.
124 Id. at 14–15; see also id. at 16–18.
125 Id. at 15.
126 Id. at 16–17.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 29 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 30 of 32
Based on the foregoing, First Student contends that the arbitrator’s conclusion that
First Student violated the National Agreement was “not a plausible interpretation
of the agreement or a reasoned decision based on the evidence.”127
First Student’s challenge to the merits of the arbitrator’s decision and award
under the National Agreement does not provide a basis for vacatur. First Student
failed to show that Arbitrator Ford’s decision was completely irrational or in
manifest disregard of the law. 	The Court finds that Arbitrator Ford grounded her
interpretation of the parties’ agreements in their text and made her findings of fact
based on evidence presented at the arbitration.128 Accordingly, the Court will not
vacate her award on this basis.
C. 	The Arbitrator’s Award Was Grounded in Her Interpretation of the
Agreement and Her Findings of Fact
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 a 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.”129
According to First Student, because Mr. Kuklis was a “removed employee”
127 Id.at 15.
128 See Docket 10-9 at 12–14.
129 Docket 4 at 19.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 30 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 31 of 32
he was only entitled to “extra non-regular work” and Teamsters failed to show that
any such work was available.130 	Additionally, First Student claims there was no
basis to award Mr. Kuklis wage rates other than those in the Local Agreement or
to award him wages for work that “may have existed outside the local geographic
area” covered by the Local Agreement as there was no evidence such work
existed.131 	Lastly, First Student asserts that the Local Agreement bars the
arbitrator from making an award inconsistent with the agreement, but that the
arbitrator did so as there was no evidence that management “has a practice of
finding, creating work or taking work from other employees for anyone that has
been removed from the district.”132
The Court notes that the arbitrator’s award did not specify the wage rate,
and therefore First Student’s objection on that basis is unfounded. Similarly, First
Student’s objection that the arbitrator’s award is inconsistent with the Local
Agreement because Teamsters failed to prove there was a practice of finding work
for a removed employee is without merit; an absence of evidence of a practice is
not evidence that it conflicts with the agreement. 	More importantly, however, the
Court 	finds 	that 	the 	arbitrator’s 	award 	of 	relief 	arose 	from 	her 	reasonable
interpretation of the National and Local agreements and her application thereof to
130 Id.
131 Id.
132 Id. at 19–20.
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 31 of 32

Case No. 3:18-cv-00305-SLG, First Student, Inc. v. Teamsters, Local 959
Order re Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award and Cross-Motion to Dismiss Petition to Vacate
Arbitrator’s Award
Page 32 of 32
the facts as presented during the arbitration. Accordingly, the Court will not second
guess Arbitrator Ford’s proposed relief and declines to vacate her decision and
award on this basis.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that First Student’s Motion to
Vacate Arbitration Award at Docket 3 is DENIED, and Teamsters’ Cross-Motion to
Dismiss Petition to Vacate Arbitrator’s Award at Docket 14 is GRANTED; the
arbitrator’s award is CONFIRMED. First Student is ordered to calculate the wages
owed 	Mr. 	Kuklis 	in 	accordance 	with 	the 	arbitrator’s 	award 	and 	submit 	its
conclusions to Teamsters within 30 days of this Order.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a final judgment accordingly.
DATED this 26th day of September, 2019, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:18-cv-00305-SLG Document 46 Filed 09/26/19 Page 32 of 32