United States District Court, E.D. New York
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
D. SPATT United States District Judge.
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
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.
parties have advised the Court that the disposition of these
opposing petitions will conclude the litigation without the
need for discovery.
for the reasons that follow, the Petitioner's Petition is
granted; the Respondent's Cross-Petition is denied; and
this case is closed.
following facts are undisputed.
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”).
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
about July 8, 2015, the Petitioner suspended Mr. Nino's
about July 10, 2015, the Union filed a grievance on Mr.
Nino's behalf challenging the suspension.
with the provisions of the CBA, the parties submitted their
dispute to arbitrator Roger Maher, who held hearings on