of any remuneration.  Other Helpers who were on layoff were more senior than he was.  His grievance is, therefore, denied.  The Company is directed to adhere to the language of the Agreement to fill future needs of this type and eliminate the reliance on an alleged past practice.  It is not a past practice.


12
On February 17, 1984, Tate filed an application in the district court for an order vacating or modifying the arbitrator's award, contending that there was no evidence to support the arbitrator's finding that Tate was not the most senior helper on layoff.  In support thereof, Tate submitted the affidavits of the staff representative and the president of the AFL-CIO-CLC local representing Tate.  Both affiants stated that they were presentat the arbitration hearing in this case, and that there was no evidence presented at the hearing showing that anyone other than Tate was the most senior laid-off employee in the helper classification.  Additionally, the staff representative's affidavit stated that both Tate's testimony and documentary evidence presented at the hearing showed that Tate was the most senior laid-off helper.


13
Fischer moved to dismiss the application, or, in the alternative, to have summary judgment granted in its favor.  Fischer filed no countervailing affidavits; rather, it contended that the arbitrator's factual finding on the seniority issue was final and dispositive.  On May 4, 1984, Tate filed a motion for summary judgment, relying on the previously filed affidavits.


14
On August 20, 1984, the district court granted summary judgment for Tate.