Transcript Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers

Quote from Misco, 484 U.S. 29
(1987)
• “We cautioned, however, that a court's refusal to
enforce an arbitrator's interpretation of such
contracts is limited to situations where the contract
as interpreted would violate ‘some explicit public
policy’ that is ‘well defined and dominant, and is
to be ascertained by reference to the laws and legal
precedents and not from general considerations of
supposed public interests.’” (484 U.S. 29, 43)
Eastern Assoc. Coal Corp. v.
United Mine Workers
• Public policy regarding operating vehicles while
using drugs does not forbid enforcement of an
arbitration award (an agreement) reinstating (with
severe conditions) a truck driver who was
discharged for twice testing positive for marijuana
• Policies exist that
– Prohibit persons who test positive for drug use from
operating commercial motor vehicles
– Encourage rehabilitation of such persons
– Neither is “dominant”
• No public policy requiring the discharge of a truck
driver who twice tests positive for drugs
Eastern Assoc. (concurrence)
• Scolds court for the following sentence,
which he says is dictum:
– “We agree, in principle, that courts’ authority to
invoke the public policy exception is not
limited solely to instances where the arbitration
award itself violates positive law.”
– What other instances are there?
– Would restrict court review even more than
main opinion.