United States District Court, S.D. New York
OPINION AND ORDER
Vincent L. Briccetti United States District Judge.
A&A Maintenance Enterprise, Inc. (“A&A”),
brings this action under Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act against respondent Alvin Ramnarain, as
President of Local 1102, Retail Wholesale and Department
Store Union, United Food and Commercial Workers (“Local
1102” or the “union”), to vacate an
arbitration award dated December 22, 2018, issued by
Arbitrator J.J. Pierson (the “arbitrator”) as to
liability (the “liability award”). (Doc. #1-1
(“Pet.”)). The union, in turn, has
cross-petitioned to confirm the liability award, as well as
an April 19, 2019, award issued as to damages (the
“relief award”). (Doc. #7).
following reasons, A&A's petition is DENIED, and the
union's cross-petition is GRANTED.
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
following factual background is drawn from the parties'
submissions in support of and in opposition to the pending
petition and cross-petition.
A&A is a corporation providing janitorial and maintenance
services to owners and operators of commercial real estate
and educational institutions.
is the President of Local 1102, a labor union engaged in
representing workers in negotiations with their employers
concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of
union represents building service workers, groundskeepers,
and mechanics at Long Island University's campus located
in Old Brookville, New York (the “university”).
The university contracted with A&A to perform janitorial,
mechanical, and groundskeeping work on campus. As employer
for the janitorial, mechanical, and groundskeeping workers,
A&A assumed the collective bargaining agreement (the
“CBA”) between the university and the union.
the expiration of the CBA on August 31, 2017, A&A and the
union participated in three bargaining sessions. The union
alleges A&A sought to “obtain ‘the right to
use temporary employees'” during those sessions.
(Doc. #8 (“Resp't Answer & Cross-Pet.”)
at 13). The union rejected A&A's proposal
and A&A withdrew its request. Eventually, the parties
agreed on a new CBA.
The Labor Dispute
fall of 2017, bargaining unit members noticed new employees
doing building service work at the university. The bargaining
unit members notified their union representative. The union
representative attempted to ascertain the status of these new
workers but was unable to do so. He then filed a written
grievance on January 12, 2018, under the impression these new
workers were substitutes. Eventually, after filing the
grievance, the union representative learned the workers were
not part of the bargaining unit represented by Local 1102.
January 26, 2018, the parties submitted to binding
arbitration their dispute over the interpretation of the CBA
respecting these workers. However, the parties framed the
union's original grievance stated, “The employer
violated the collective bargaining agreement through its
failure to comply with the substitute employees
article.” (Resp't Answer & Cross-Pet. Ex. C).
However, when the union submitted its grievance to
arbitration, it described the issue as follows:
“Employer violated Articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12,
15 & 20 [of the CBA] by improperly using ‘temporary
employees,' as that term is defined in Article 5, to
perform bargaining unit work.” (Resp't Answer &
Cross-Pet. Ex. D). And before the arbitrator, the union
stated the issue was whether ...