Nashua Corp. v . Paper Allied Union CV-03-503-PB 03/14/05

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Nashua Corporation

v. Civil N o . 03-503-PB Opinion NO.

Paper, Allied Industrial, Chemical and Energy International Union, Local 1-0270

O R D E R

The result in this case is dictated by the applicable

standard of review. This standard does not permit a court to

reverse an arbitrator’s decision if he has acted within the scope

of his authority and has arguably interpreted the contract even

if the “court is convinced he committed serious error . . . .”

Poland Spring Corp. v . United Food and Commercial Workers Int’l

Union,

9 , 33 (1st Cir. 2002), quoting United Paper

Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO v . Misco,

9 , 38 (1987).

The arbitrator supported his decision with a carefully

reasoned 20-page memorandum. He addressed the evidence produced

by the parties during the arbitration hearing and made a good

faith attempt to respond to their respective legal arguments. Although I disagree with his ultimate conclusion that Nashua

Corporation lacked the power under the collective bargaining

agreement to eliminate coverage for early retirees,1 I cannot say

that his analysis of the evidence and interpretation of the

collective bargaining agreement was irrational or that he was

attempting to “substitute[] ‘his own brand of industrial justice’

for what has been agreed to by the parties.” Georgia-Pac. C o . v .

Local 2 7 , United Paperworkers Int’l Union,

4 0 , 944 (1st

Cir. 1988), quoting United Steel Workers v . Enter. Wheel and Car,

(1960). That ends the matter.

Nashua Corporation’s motion for summary judgment (doc. n o .

13) is denied and the Union’s motion for summary judgment (doc.

n o . 16) is granted.

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro United States District Judge

March 1 4 , 2005

1 Although the arbitrator characterized Nashua Corporation’s action as a proposal to terminate benefits for early retirees, his decision memorandum makes clear that he understood that Nashua Corporation was proposing to prospectively eliminate benefits for future retirees rather than to terminate benefits that had already become vested.

-2- David Gottesman, E Paul Murphy, Esq. James Norton, Esq. Vincent Wenners, J

-3-