Rules and Laws- Arbitration?

Question

Randall Fris worked as a seaman on an Exxon Shipping Co. oil tanker for eight years without incident.  One night, he boarded the ship for duty while intoxicated, in violation of company policy.  This policy also allowed Exxon to discharge employees who were intoxicated and thus unfit for work.  Exxon discharged Fris.  Under a contract with Fris's union, the discharge was submitted to arbitration.  The arbitrators ordered Exxon to reinstate Fris on an oil tanker.  Exxon filed a suit against the union, challenging the award as contrary to public policy, which opposes having intoxicated persons operate seagoing vessels.  Can a court set aside an arbitration award on the ground that the award violates public policy?  

I think The court could rule to have the case reopen with the NL RA board based on any evidence which opposes having intoxicated persons operate seagoing vessels. It cannot set aside this arbitration award since it is unlikely that any arbitrators would have ordered Exxon to reinstate Fris on an oil tanker intoxicated. The case could only go back to arbitration. 

What do you think?

Brand X · Answer

public policy actually favors the use of arbitration and upholding its results.  But if you can prove that there was abuse of the arbitration process there can be an overturning.

? · Answer

Hmmm could I be choosing merely one? LOL! Eeek too difficult. Will merely write my first theory for each element: Adherence to regulations: I do go via the "regulations" for the main section, in spite of the incontrovertible fact that that's extra for ethical reasons and because i'm very uncomplicated besides. i do no longer persist with regulations for regulations sake and don't think of that they are the main severe element Adherence to regulations: ehh, variety of comparable to above, perhaps a stable connotation as regulations are extra concrete than regulations perhaps. lower back, if i'm responsive to them, and that's a danger to stick to them, then I do. do no longer see any reason to interrupt a low yet i'm no longer a regulation enforcer perse. Adherence to ethics: i'd say that i'm ethical. that's like innate in me. i like to win, yet won't win via any means mandatory. cheating to win, isn't winning in any respect imo. Adherence to fairness: sure, i like fairness. significant to me and it annoys me while human beings do no longer play uncomplicated. variety of related w. ethics i assume. lower back, in case you probably did no longer play uncomplicated, then you probably did no longer win to me. Adherence to reality: i admire reality. that's extremely significant to me. an uncomplicated individual, in spite of if what they are telling me is undesirable, will nonetheless get my understand for no longer being a liar. I merely love honesty and am truly closer to those that're direct and uncomplicated Adherence to human beings thoughts: I also have a extreme regard for peoples thoughts. I do evaluate how a individual will sense or the way it could lead on them to sense while making a determination or in the previous asserting something. i do no longer think of thoughts are the top all of all issues, yet I do provide them attention. in spite of the incontrovertible fact that, good judgment, fairness, reality, and ethics, will win over egocentric thoughts (like, i think of it is okay to pass after this married guy as a results of fact i admire him and want to have him---those are stupid thoughts and could no longer settle for any attention from me). Me: sunlight: Sadge, Moon: Leo, Mercury: Capricorn, Venus and Mars: Scorpio

Trending News

Rules and Laws- Arbitration?

2 Answers