Unpublished Disposition, 872 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1987)

No. 88-6062.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT and FARRIS, Circuit Judges, and FERN M. SMITH,^**  District Judge.

MEMORANDUM^*** 

* We decide whether a party may withdraw from arbitration because the arbitrator delayed unreasonably in rendering an award.

Local No. 42 filed a grievance alleging that an employer, Blue Diamond, had violated the parties' collective bargaining agreement by removing a truck from its fleet. Pursuant to the procedures of the CBA, the parties selected Meiners to arbitrate. He held a hearing on January 10, 1986.

Meiners was inexcusably indecisive. On July 14, 1987, 18 months after the hearing, the Union wrote to him attempting, because of his delay, to withdraw consent to his authority and to vacate his power to decide. The employer objected. On July 28, 1987, Meiners decided the grievance in favor of the Company.

The Union filed a complaint in district court seeking to vacate the award. The court granted the Company's summary judgment motion and confirmed the award.

II

The parties' CBA conferred jurisdiction on the arbitrator. See Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 860 (9th Cir. 1979). It failed, however, to limit the arbitrator's jurisdiction by setting a date by which he must render an award. Absent such a contractual provision, we find no basis on which to allow the Union to withdraw from arbitration because of the arbitrator's delay.

The Third Circuit considered an attempted withdrawal because of delay in Local Union 560 v. Anchor Motor Freight, 415 F.2d 220 (3d Cir. 1969). According to the arbitration agreement, the arbitrator had to render a decision 30 days after the hearing. After eight months passed without an award, the Union said it would reject the arbitrator's decision because of his delay. The arbitrator decided in favor of the Company and the Union sought to vacate the award.

The court declined to allow the Union's withdrawal. It held that an arbitrator's jurisdiction continued for a reasonable time after the expiration of the contract deadline. It required that a party show prejudice before withdrawal would be permitted.

The rule of Anchor would require the Union to show prejudice before allowing it to withdraw. The Union here has not shown prejudice. Even if we wished to rely on Anchor, we could not under the facts of our case. Withdrawal is not available in arbitrations in which the parties, as here, have set no time limit in their contract. See Local 8249 v. Adbill Management, 118 L.R.R.M. 2644 (D.V.I. 1984).

The Union contends that Meiners' unreasonable delay terminated his jurisdiction automatically. No authority supports its position. Jones v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 728 F.2d 257 (6th Cir. 1984), relied on by the Union, is inapplicable. The court there enforced the deadline the parties had set in their contract. The parties here failed to set one.

Although we agree that Meiners delayed inexcusably, we have no basis to terminate his authority or put a time limit on his decision unless the parties protected themselves by contract.

AFFIRMED.