How have courts interpreted collective bargaining agreements in employment arbitration?

Appellants rely heavily on Pacific Crown Distributors v. Brotherhood of Teamsters (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1138 (Pacific). Pacific involved an arbitration concerning an employee dismissal. Prior to the arbitration, both appellant and respondent stipulated that the only issue being submitted to the arbitrator was whether or not the discharge of the employee was in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement, and if not, the appropriate remedy. (Id. at p. 1142.) One particular provision of the collective bargaining agreement, section 9.2(1), provided that an employee would be allowed to remain on the job without loss of pay until the employee's discharge was sustained under the grievance procedure. (Ibid.) At the time of the arbitration at issue, it was not clear whether section 9.2(1) was in effect. However, the parties made an agreement whereby section 9.2(1) would be reinserted into the collective bargaining agreement, but would not be applied in the termination arbitration hearing at issue. (Id. at p. 1142, fn. 1.)

Page 12