Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Inc. v. Local 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers

United States District Court, E.D. New York

March 7, 2017

PRO'S CHOICE BEAUTY CARE, INC., Petitioner,
v.
LOCAL 2013, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS, Respondent.

          Jackson Lewis, P.C. Attorneys for the Petitioner By: Steven S. Goodman, Esq. Kathryn J. Barry, Esq., Of Counsel

          O'Brien Belland & Bushinsky, LLC Attorneys for the Respondent By: Kevin D. Jarvis, Esq., Of Counsel

          DECISION & ORDER

          ARTHUR D. SPATT United States District Judge.

         On May 9, 2016, the Petitioner Pro's Choice Beauty Care, Inc. (the “Petitioner”) commenced this action by filing a petition (the “Petition”) to partially vacate an arbitration award (the “Arbitration Award”).

         Thereafter, on August 31, 2016, the Respondent Local 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers (the “Respondent” or “Union”) responded to the Petition by way of a cross-petition (the “Cross-Petition”), seeking to confirm the Arbitration Award.

         The parties have advised the Court that the disposition of these opposing petitions will conclude the litigation without the need for discovery.

         Thus, for the reasons that follow, the Petitioner's Petition is granted; the Respondent's Cross-Petition is denied; and this case is closed.

         I. Background

         The following facts are undisputed.

         At all relevant times, non-party Miguel Nino was employed by the Petitioner. Mr. Nino is a member of the Respondent Union, and as such, his employment is governed by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”).

         Relevant here, the CBA requires employment-related disputes between the Petitioner and covered employees to be submitted to binding arbitration. In particular, the CBA expressly states that the arbitrator selected to preside over such disputes lacks the authority to add to, delete, or modify the terms of the CBA. Further, the CBA states that the arbitrator's decision shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, and regulations.

         On or about July 8, 2015, the Petitioner suspended Mr. Nino's employment.

         On or about July 10, 2015, the Union filed a grievance on Mr. Nino's behalf challenging the suspension.

         Consistent with the provisions of the CBA, the parties submitted their dispute to arbitrator Roger Maher, who held hearings on October ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.