BAYVIEW COMPANY, INC. d/b/a BAYVIEW INSULATION COMPANY v. International Association of Heat

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 07-3003
BAYVIEW COMPANY, INC.
d/b/a BAYVIEW INSULATION COMPANY
v.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HEAT AND FROST INSULATORS, AND
ASBESTOS WORKERS, LOCAL 2
Bayview Company, Inc.,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-cv-00041E)
District Judge: The Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 23, 2008
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.
(Filed: May 28, 2008)
OPINION OF THE COURT

-- 1 of 3 --

2
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge.
Bayview Company, Inc. appeals an order of the District Court to grant summary
judgment to appellee, International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos
Worker’s Local 2. Because our opinion is wholly without precedential value, and
because the parties and the District Court are familiar with its operative facts, we offer
only an abbreviated recitation to explain why we will affirm the order of the District
Court.
This case arises from a disagreement between the parties on whether Bayview
violated the “Project Stabilization Agreement” by employing certain workers to install
insulation on the construction project. Specifically, the union charged that particular
employees hired by Bayview did not have the proper training and experience. The union
charged that this violated the referral system established by the union and consented to in
the Agreement by the parties. The Agreement required arbitration of all such disputes.
The arbitrator found that Bayview had violated the agreement in the manner in
which it employed workers at the job site, and he ordered Bayview to comply with the
terms of the Agreement. The arbitrator also ordered Bayview to pay to the Union an
amount equal to all back pay and benefits that it lost from this violation of the Agreement.
Bayview appealed the arbitrator’s decision and the District Court granted summary
judgment in favor of the union.
In this appeal, Bayview alleges that the arbitrator’s award did not draw its essence
from the Project Stabilization Agreement and that the award was punitive, which the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Agreement does not permit. It is well settled that courts must give strong deference to an
arbitrator’s decision if it “draws its essence” from the parties’ agreement. Koshatka v.
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. 762 F.2d 329 (3d Cir. 1985). A review of the record
supports the District Court’s conclusion that the arbitrator’s decision and award of back
pay and benefits drew its essence from the contract. Accordingly, we will affirm the
order of the District Court.

-- 3 of 3 --