USCA1 Opinion

February 15, 1996

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

United States Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
For the First Circuit
____________________
No. 95-1725

CARIBE HILTON INTERNATIONAL, D/B/A

CARIBE HILTON INTERNATIONAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNION DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUSTRIA GASTRONOMICA DE PUERTO RICO

LOCAL 610 OF THE HOTEL EMPLOYEES AND RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO, ET AL.,

Defendant - Appellee.

____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]

___________________

____________________

Before

Boudin, Circuit Judge,

_____________
Aldrich, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
_____________

____________________

Roberto E. Vega-Pacheco,
________________________

Mayra I. Rivera-Delgado, and

________________________

Odell & Calabria on brief for appellant.

Marti
_____

________________
Francisco Aponti Perez on brief for appellee.
______________________

____________________

____________________
Per Curiam.
Per Curiam.
___________

International ("the

Plaintiff-appellant

Hotel") brought an action

Caribe

Hilton

in the United

States

District

vacate a labor

against

Court for

arbitration award.

the Hotel

affirming

the District

on

The district

cross motions

the arbitral award.

of Puerto

Rico to

court ruled

for summary

judgment,

The Hotel appeals.

We affirm

the ruling below.

This dispute arose from

Hotel and the appellee

a disagreement between the

Union as to the appropriate

ratio of

banquet waiters to function patrons, an issue that had been a

source of

dispute

conflict

arose

again

for some

over

time.

On August

the waiter-patron

3, 1990,

ratio.

The

banquet waiters' union representative called a work stoppage;

the protest quickly

For

two to

spread to all departments

three hours, about

bringing the entire

300 employees

Hotel's operations to a

of the Hotel.

stopped work,

standstill.

It

is

undisputed that

violation of

the

action was

an

illegal strike,

the collective bargaining agreement.

in

At issue

is the Hotel's response to the illegal strike.

The

even

Hotel terminated

though the

arbitrator found

played decidedly

The

employees

penalized,

duration of

all of the

banquet workers,

that the

several waiters

different roles in instigating

from

by the

other

loss of

the strike.

departments

pay for

were

the two

The union sought

the strike.

only

or three

mildly

hour

arbitration, and

the parties submitted the issue to the arbitrator as follows:

"[W]hether

the dismissal of all

-33

the complainants was or not

[sic] justified.

If not,

that the

arbitrator provide

the

corresponding remedy."

The arbitrator

justified.

dismissals

workers (as

ruled that the

Specifically,

constituted

the

arbitrator

discrimination

a group) vis-a-vis

dismissals were not

found

that

against the

the employees

in the

the

banquet

other

departments, and that the dismissals were unfair as among the

individual banquet workers because the remedy did not reflect

the

that

waiters' varying

the

dismissal

levels of

of

the workers

arbitrator

proceeded

to

consistent

with

parties'

arbitrator

divided the

their

the

culpability

culpability.

determine

an

waiters into

but backpay

unjustified,

submission.

three groups

the

the

appropriate remedy,

arbitral

in instigating

groups were reinstated,

was

Having found

strike.

The

based on

All

and suspension

three

periods

were tailored to each group's culpability.

A court's

highly deferential.

Misco, Inc., 484

___________

arbitrator

is

review of

award is

See United Paper Workers Int'l Union v.

___ ________________________________

U.S. 29,

even

a labor arbitration

36-38 (1987) ("[A]s

arguably

construing

or

long as

the

applying

the

contract and acting within the scope of its authority, that a

court

is

suffice

affirmed

convinced

to overturn

the

he

committed serious

his

arbitrator's

decision.").

award

in

error

does

The district

comprehensive

not

court

and

detailed opinion, consistent with the deferential standard of

-44

review.

That opinion addresses all of the arguments that the

Hotel

raises in this appeal.

27.1,

we affirm
______

the

Pursuant to First Circuit Rule

judgment below

district court's well-reasoned opinion.

on

the basis

of

the

-55