The Pacific & Arctic Railway halted operations between Skagway, Alaska, and the Yukon Territory. The union filed grievances, and a three-member arbitration panel, consisting of a union member, a carrier member, and a neutral member, met to hear the grievances. On the evening of the first hearing day, the railroad’s attorney encountered the union member and the neutral member going out to dinner; the union member paid for the dinner. When the hearing resumed, the railroad’s attorney questioned the ex parte contacts. A heated discussion ensued, with the neutral member characterizing the objection as “trivial.” An exchange between the neutral member and the attorney followed:
THE ARBITRATOR: Sir, I don’t care what your plans are. Now, will you stop interrupting the board? If you say you’re through, you’re through.
MR. ROBINSON: I’m making a record. Are you preventing me from making a record?

THE ARBITRATOR: No, you can make no further record.
MR. ROBINSON: I can make no further record?
THE ARBITRATOR: As far as I’m concerned, you’ve said everything you can say.

The railroad withdrew from the hearing, and the neutral member continued the hearing with only the union present. Ultimately, the neutral member totally disregarded the carrier’s arguments and decided the grievance in favor of the union. A second hearing was held in Skagway on another grievance. The railroad again refused to participate. After a short hearing, the neutral member and union member stayed in the area for several days and went on fishing trips together and took their meals together. The neutral member again ruled in favor of the union.

The carrier contended that the arbitration awards should be set aside because the conduct of the neutral member amounted to the functional equivalent of fraud.
The union contends that court decisions make clear that Congress specifically intended to keep railroad labor disputes out of the courts. It argues that arbitration is an informal process and that the hearing was conducted in a satisfactory manner. The union states that no evidence exists that the union member and neutral member ever discussed the matter they were arbitrating outside the hearing room.
On what grounds can a court set aside an arbitration award under the RLA? Why are the grounds for court review of arbitration awards so narrow? Decide. [Pacific & Arctic Railway v. United Transportation Union, 952 F.2d 1144 (9th Cir. 1991)]