Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—8th Cir.: Arbitration award reinstating employee fired for ‘dishonest’ training certification upheld on appeal, (Nov 10, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The CBA did not define “dishonesty,” and the arbitrator “reasonably decided that at the heart of all dishonest, false, or fraudulent acts is the intent to deceive,” which the employee did not possess.

The Eighth Circuit held that a federal district court did not err in refusing to overturn an arbitration award reinstating an employee who was discharged for allegedly falsifying a probationary employee’s on-the-job (OJT) training certification, rejecting the employer’s contention that the arbitrator exceeded his authority in interpreting the provision in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement allowing immediate termination for “dishonesty” and “document alteration and/or falsification” as including an intent-to-deceive requirement. Here, the arbitrator found that because, amongst other things, it was common practice for the employee to fill out the forms the way she did, she did not possess the requisite intent. The employer also failed to demonstrate that the award violated public policy since neither the FDCA or the FDA regulations upon which the company relied bans or restricts the reinstatement of an employee for a procedural training violation (Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Wareho2403077usemen and Helpers of America, Local 688, No. 2403077 (8th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025)).

FDA-mandated training. The employer manufactures emergency use auto-injectors used in EpiPens and similar devices, which is regulated by the FDA through the FDCA. To meet FDA training requirements, the employer assigned experienced technicians (trainers) to provide OJT to probationary employees (trainees). Once training is completed, the trainer fills out certification forms. After a supervisor approves the training, the trainee may undertake production tasks.

Alleged fraudulent certification. The employee worked for the employer as a senior technician and qualified trainer. After a supervisor noticed that she certified that a trainee had completed five OJTs in one day, the employer opened an investigation that led to her termination. The company claimed it had just cause to immediately terminate her for submitting a fraudulent OJT certification, as evidenced by the lack of supporting documentation and the trainee’s inability to proficiently perform the OJT tasks.

CBA “just cause” provision. The parties’ collective bargaining agreement allowed the employer to immediately terminate employees for just cause if they engaged in certain misconduct, including “dishonesty” and “document alteration and/or falsification (including signing for work that was not performed by/checked by the colleague(s) who signed for the work).” The employer claimed that it discharged the employee under these provisions.

Grievance and arbitration. The union pursued the employee’s grievance on her behalf, arguing that the employer lacked just cause to terminate her since it was common practice for trainers to conduct and observe five OJTs in one day. Siding with the union, the arbitrator found that the employer failed to prove that the employee’s certification of the OJTs was “intentionally fraudulent” or “falsified,” and ordered that she be reinstated with full seniority and backpay.

Arbitrator’s fact findings. In reaching this decision, the arbitrator found that the employer had always been short-handed for the employee’s shift, resulting in a rush to get people trained, frequent double shifts, and grievances over the forced overtime in order to train new employees. In addition, she and others were instructed to sign off on documents and to provide training in a manner contrary to the actual process for OTJ training. It was also common practice for trainers to sign off on OJTs once a trainee was fully trained, not on each day of the training process. In addition, the arbitrator drew an adverse inference against the employer for not calling either of the employee’s two direct supervisors to testify.

Lower court proceedings. The employer moved to vacate the award at the district court, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority, and that the award violated public policy. Disagreeing, the district court granted the union summary judgment and affirmed the arbitrator’s award.

“Just cause” and intent to deceive. Affirming the decision below, the Eighth Circuit found that neither of the two “extremely narrow” circumstances were present that allow a court to vacate an arbitration award under the FAA. First, the appeals court rejected the employer’s contention that the arbitrator’s award failed to draw its essence from the CBA. In particular, the company argued that he made an unauthorized modification of the CBA by adding an intent-to-deceive element to the definition of “just cause” since the CBA required only “dishonesty” or “document alteration and/or falsification.”

However, since the CBA did not define “dishonesty,” the term was ambiguous. The arbitrator was therefore authorized to interpret its meaning, and he “reasonably decided that at the heart of all dishonest, false, or fraudulent acts is the intent to deceive.” The ambiguous language also allowed the arbitrator to consider other relevant sources of the parties’ intent, including their past practices. Accordingly, the award drew its essence from the CBA.

No manifest disregard for the law. The Eighth Circuit also rejected the employer’s contention that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by drawing an adverse inference against the company for failing to call the employee’s direct supervisors as witnesses, which it claimed constituted a manifest disregard for the law. Significantly, the arbitrator had discretion to require the employer to demonstrate just cause to terminate the employee. Therefore, because the company bore the burden of proof and its supervisors were available and possessed pertinent information, the arbitrator acted within his authority, and the adverse inference was not a manifest disregard for the law.

Not contrary to public policy. The employer’s contention that the arbitrator’s award violated public policy also failed. “The clearest examples of well-defined and dominant public policies against reinstatement awards are where the law, legal precedent, or regulations contain ‘specific and exacting requirements’ or explicitly forbid or restrict reinstatement,” explained the Eighth Circuit. Indeed, the cases upon which the employer relied involved regulations that explicitly banned or restricted a reinstatement, such as those requiring airlines to prevent intoxicated pilots from flying.

Here, however, neither the FDCA nor the FDA regulations governing auto-injector training bans or restricts the reinstatement of an employee for a procedural training violation. Thus, the employer could not point to a “well-defined and dominant public policy” that prohibited the employee’s reinstatement. Indeed, based on the arbitrator’s finding of facts, it was the employer “that disregards common sense in its training practices.”

The case is No. 24-3077.

Judge: Benton, D.

Attorneys: Dean S. Kpere-Daibo (Constangy & Brooks) for Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. Daniel Michael McLaughlin (Hammond & Shinners) for International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.

Companies: Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc.; International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America

Cases: Arbitration Labor UnionsMembers Discharge ContractClaims