But the question of whether a provision of the CBA is illegal is very different from the one the arbitrator asked here. The main burden of Snow`s argument is that the parties wanted the CBA to “respect” Oregon`s legal provisions, regardless of the fact that these provisions did render the CBA`s drug policy illegal. According to Snow, “the parties` agreement and the employer`s drug policy must be understood by reference to state law.” See arbitration decision of 24 While referees can generally consult external sources for consultation, see Teamsters of Hawaii, 241 F.3d to 1184, the problem here is that the simple language of the DISPOSITIONS of the CBA specifically, which “under the influence” provisions solve the problem clearly. In fact, Snow himself found that Thomas was “under the influence,” which meant freightliner had the power to terminate him. This is not a case where the arbitrator found ambiguity or a flaw in the CBA and therefore sought an external right for meaning. Instead, Snow accepted that the rules of drug policy be clear, but went beyond those provisions to apply an opposing external law. In fact, Snow introduced the provisions of the Marijuana Act on the CBA. However, as noted above, Articles 5 and 21 are not plausibly read by the only internal authority quoting Snow, in order to give Snow such leeway in his interpretation of the CBA. In short, the court found that Snow “ignores the simple language of contract 1126 and clearly does not respect the contours of the agreement.” Phoenix Newspapers, 989 F.2d to 1081. The court acknowledges, however, that Snow has sometimes suggested that the marijuana law actually makes the CBA`s drug policy illegal. In other words, part of Snow`s language suggests that he was based on the law not only because of the parties` intention to comply or incorporate the law, but also because he felt that the law was yes to the provisions of the CBA. See z.B. Arbitration decision at 23 (“It is reasonable to conclude that the parties intend to be legal.” [1] In any event, Snow`s decision, even if one accepts the proposition that the marijuana law made the CBA`s drug policy applied to Thomas illegal, is still not.

The central question for conciliation was as follows: “Did the employer suspend and terminate the afflicted for a just reason, in accordance with the parties` employment contract?” Under the terms of the collective agreement, Freightliner Thomas could only resign if he had “only reasons” to do so. [I]f the agreement and the external law are in contradiction, and if the arbitration award is based on using the words of the Supreme Court of Corporate Wheel, “only on the opinion of the arbitrator on the requirements of the legislation enacted … arbitration would not withstand judicial review unless both parties allow the arbitrator to decide the case in accordance with external law. In summary, the Tribunal considers it inappropriate to rely on prescription drug regulations when this raises certain potentially factual issues, and the arbitrator himself did not rely on this provision. In these circumstances, Teamsters` arguments, which implied the pharmaceutical language of the CBA, serve only to divert attention from the central question: whether the arbitration award itself constitutes a “plausible interpretation of the mission”. SFIC Props. 103 F.3d to 924-25. For the reasons presented by Snow, the award is not a plausible interpretation of the CBA.