Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen etc. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-railroad’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-union seeking to vacate arbitrator’s ruling that defendant’s 2003 attendance policy did not conflict with parties’ 1952 agreement that also covered employee attendance. Plaintiff was not entitled to vacatur of arbitrator’s ruling under limited scope of review since record showed that arbitrator interpreted 1952 agreement and reached tenable result from text of said agreement. Fact that arbitrator may have erred in his interpretation by failing to agree with plaintiff’s view that 1952 agreement gave union employees right to lay off for 30 days did not require different result.