THOMAS W. THRASH, JR., United States District Judge
This is a Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award. It is before the Court on the Petition and the Response and the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 6]. The Petitioner seeks to set aside an arbitration award of a System Board of Adjustment sustaining his termination as an employee of Northwest Airlines. Petitioner was a mechanic employed at Northwest's Atlanta hangar. He was discharged after using a racial epithet during conversation with fellow employees. In the subsequent investigation, Petitioner admitted using the racial epithet. After his termination, he filed a grievance which resulted in the convening of a System Board of Adjustment. The Board held an evidentiary hearing at which Petitioner was represented by counsel furnished by his union. The System Board of Adjustment heard a day of testimony from witnesses called by the company and Petitioner. It then issued a 28 page written Decision and Award sustaining Petitioner's termination. The Petition seeks to set aside the arbitration award pursuant to 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(3). Respondent, however, correctly points out that this action is governed by the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The Act provides:
If any employee or group of employees, or any carrier, is aggrieved by the failure of any division of the Adjustment Board to make an award in a dispute referred to it, or is aggrieved by any of the terms of an award or by the failure of the division to include certain terms in such award, then such employee or group of employees or carrier may file in any United States district court in which a petition under paragraph (p) could be filed, a petition for review of the division's order. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Adjustment Board. The Adjustment Board shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which it based its action. The court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the order of the division or to set it aside, in whole or in part, or it may remand the proceeding to the division for such further action as it may direct. On such review, the findings and order of the division shall be conclusive on the parties, except that the order of the division may be set aside, in whole or in part, or remanded to the division, for failure of the division to comply with the requirements of this chapter, for failure of the order to conform, or confine itself, to matters within the scope of the division's jurisdiction, or for fraud or corruption by a member of the division making the order.
45 U.S.C. § 153(q). "Judicial review of Adjustment Board orders is limited to three specific grounds: (1) failure of the Adjustment Board to comply with the requirements of the Railway Labor Act; (2) failure of the Adjustment Board to conform, or confine, itself to matters within the scope of its jurisdiction; and (3) fraud corruption. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Sheehan,
439 U.S. 89, 93, 99 S.Ct. 399, 402 (1978). "The federal courts do not sit as super arbitration tribunals in suits brought to enforce awards of the Adjustment Board. They may not substitute their judgments for those of the Board divisions. They need not inquire whether substantial evidence supports the Board's awards." Diamond v. Terminal Ry. Alabama State Docks,
421 F.2d 228, 233 (5th Cir. 1970). "[T]he range of judicial review in enforcement cases is among the narrowest known to the law." Id.
A party may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay trial. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when no issues of material fact exist and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ortega v. Christian, 85 F.3d 1521, 1524 (11th Cir. 1996). In rendering a judgment on the pleadings, a court considers only the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts. Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1998). The court accepts the facts in the complaint as true and views them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. The complaint may not be dismissed "unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Slagle v. ITT Hartford, 102 F.3d 494, 497 (11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)).
Petitioner initially alleged that the award should be set aside because (1) the evidence was insufficient to support the Board's decision; (2) the Board improperly admitted and relied upon hearsay; (3) the Board ignored evidence that the Defendant did not enforce its anti-harassment policy; and (4) the Board was influenced by "outside events." Even if these allegations were true, they do not constitute legal grounds for setting aside the Board's decision. Sheehan, 439 U.S. at 93, 99 S.Ct. at 402. In his Reply, Petitioner argues that the Court retains the power after Sheehan to set aside a Board determination where there is an absence of fundamental due process. The Court need not address the legal issue in this case, because the Petitioner has not shown a prima facie case of an absence of fundamental due process. The Court has carefully reviewed the transcript of the Adjustment Board hearing and the written Decision and Award sustaining Petitioner's termination. Petitioner received a full and fair hearing and there is not a scintilla of evidence in the record that the members of the Board were biased in any way.
The Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 6] is GRANTED. The Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award [Doc. 1 4] is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of the Defendant.
SO ORDERED.