Motor Expressmen's Union v. Mistletoe Express Service
This memorandum opinion addresses a lawsuit brought by Robert Hanko and Motor Express-men’s Union (Plaintiffs) against Mistletoe Express Service (Defendant) to enforce an arbitration award. The arbitrator, A. Q. Sartain, ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs on September 19, 1977, finding that Mistletoe violated a Collective Bargaining Agreement by terminating Robert Hanko for alleged 'discourtesy to customers' on March 11, 1977. Mistletoe refused to comply with the award, leading to the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and Mistletoe's motion for dismissal or summary judgment. The court examined whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by interpreting 'discourtesy' within the contract's provisions and considering the lack of progressive discipline. Distinguishing this case from a Tenth Circuit opinion cited by Mistletoe, the court concluded that the arbitrator acted within his contractual limits in making his decision and prescribing the remedy. Consequently, the court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and affirmed the arbitrator's award, ordering its enforcement.