The United States Postal Service's application to stay the Court
of Appeals' mandate enforcing an arbitrator's decision requiring
the reinstatement of Edward Hyde as a postal worker is granted
pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari.
Although the District Court set aside the arbitrator's
reinstatement order following Hyde's discharge for dereliction of
duty upon his conviction for unlawful delay of the mail, the Court
of Appeals reversed, holding that a court may set aside an
arbitrator's award as contrary to public policy only when the award
itself violates established law or compels unlawful conduct. There
is a reasonable probability that four Justices will eventually
grant certiorari in this case, since the Court has already granted
certiorari in
Misco, Inc. v. United Paperworkers International
Union, 768 F.2d 739 (CA5),
cert. granted, 479 U.S.
1029, which raises the identical public policy issue. Moreover, the
stay equities favor the applicant, whose ability to impress the
seriousness of its mission upon its workers would be seriously
impaired by even the temporary reinstatement of a convicted
criminal, whereas continuation of the
status quo will not
work an irreparable harm on Hyde, who has not worked for the
applicant for almost three years.
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice.
Applicant United States Postal Service asks that I stay the
mandate of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit enforcing an arbitrator's decision that applicant reinstate
Edward Hyde as a postal worker. In 1984, Hyde was convicted of
unlawful delay of the mail by a postal employee after postal
inspectors found more than 3,500 pieces of undelivered mail in his
possession. The Postal Service discharged
Page 481 U. S. 1302
Hyde for dereliction of duty. Respondent filed a grievance
against applicant on Hyde's behalf, seeking arbitration. The
arbitrator ordered that applicant reinstate Hyde after a 60-day
medical leave of absence. Applicant filed suit, seeking to set
aside the award as contrary to public policy. The District Court
set aside the arbitrator's decision, finding that the Postal
Service must retain the power to remove employees who breach the
public trust and hamper the strong public interest in ensuring
prompt delivery of the mails.
631 F.
Supp. 599 (DC 1986). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding
that a court may set aside an arbitrator's award as contrary to
public policy only when the award itself violates established law
or compels unlawful conduct. 258 U.S.App.D.C. 260, 810 F.2d 1239
(1987).
The standards for granting a stay pending a petition for
certiorari are well settled: a Circuit Justice is required
"'to determine whether four Justices would vote to grant
certiorari, to balance the so-called 'stay equities,' and to give
some consideration as to predicting the final outcome of the case
in this Court.'"
Heckler v. Redbud Hospital District, 473 U.
S. 1308,
473 U. S.
1311 (1985) (REHNQUIST, Circuit Justice), quoting
Gregory-Portland Independent School District v. United
States, 448 U. S. 1342
(1980).
In my view, the applicant has satisfied these requirements.
There is a reasonable probability that four Justices will
eventually grant certiorari in this case. The Court has already
granted certiorari in
Misco, Inc. v. United Paperworkers
International Union, 768 F.2d 739 (CA5 1985),
cert.
granted, 479 U.S. 1029 (1987), which raises the identical
issue: the scope of the public policy exception to enforcement of
arbitration awards. Although that case presents the issue in the
context of a private employer, the applicant presents a stronger
case for setting aside the arbitrator's award, because it operates
under a statutory mandate to ensure prompt delivery of the mails.
See 39 U.S.C. ยง 101(a). Moreover, I find that the stay
equities favor the applicant. Even the
Page 481 U. S. 1303
temporary reinstatement of Hyde, a convicted criminal, will
seriously impair the applicant's ability to impress the seriousness
of the Postal Service's mission upon its workers. While Hyde does
have some interest in returning to his position, he has not worked
for the applicant for almost three years. Continuation of the
status quo will not work an irreparable harm on Hyde, but
it will preserve the applicant's ability to carry out its legal
obligations.
The application for a stay of the Court of Appeals' mandate
pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari is
granted.
