GALAXY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION v. LOCAl 124 I.U.J.A.T.
Filing
18
OPINION. Signed by Judge William J. Martini on 11/28/12. (gh, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 2:11-cv-04726 (WJM)
GALAXY TOWERS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
LOCAL 124 I.U.J.A.T.,
Defendant.
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.:
Plaintiff Galaxy Towers Condominium Association (“Galaxy”) filed this action
against Defendant Local 124 I.U.J.A.T.1 (the “Union”) seeking vacatur of an arbitration
award; the Union requests that the Court confirm the arbitration award. There was no
oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, Galaxy’s
application to vacate the arbitration award is DENIED, and the award is CONFIRMED.
I.
BACKGROUND
Galaxy is a condominium association operating a luxury condominium in
Guttenberg, New Jersey. The Union acts as the representative to all full-time and parttime Galaxy employees. Galaxy and the Union were parties to a collective bargaining
agreement (the “CBA”). Article 15, Section 4 of the CBA provided that, if a grievance
arose between Galaxy and an employee, “the Union or the Employer may request that the
matter be submitted to arbitration before Elliott Schriftman, Eugene Coughlin or Robert
Herzog on a rotating basis.” Bernadone Aff. Ex. A, ECF No. 5-1.
Eugene Coughlin was assigned to be the arbitrator at a hearing conducted on April
4, 2007 between the Union and Galaxy in connection with the discharge of an employee.
Galaxy’s attorney at the hearing, Stephen Ploscowe, observed Mr. Coughlin eating lunch
with the Union’s Secretary, James Bernadone, and requested that Mr. Coughlin be
replaced as the arbitrator for that matter. In response, Mr. Coughlin voluntarily recused
himself from that arbitration.
1
Defendant has since changed its name to Local 124 R.A.I.S.E.
1
On April 10, 2007, Galaxy’s attorney Mr. Ploscowe sent Mr. Bernadone a letter
stating that Galaxy wanted to amend Article 15 of the CBA to delete Mr. Coughlin’s
name. On May 7, 2007, Stephen Goldblatt, the Union’s attorney, sent an email to Mr.
Ploscowe, in which Mr. Goldblatt mentioned that he would like to address certain issues
for negotiation with regard to the CBA. Mr. Goldblatt’s email did not address the
replacement of Mr. Coughlin as an arbitrator. On May 8, 2008, Mr. Ploscowe responded
to Mr. Goldblatt’s email, stating, among other things, that Galaxy sought to designate J.J.
Pierson as an arbitrator instead of Mr. Coughlin. On May 24, 2007, Mr. Goldblatt sent an
email responding to Mr. Ploscowe, but again did not address the replacement of Mr.
Coughlin.
On December 4, 2010, an incident occurred that caused Galaxy to terminate three
employees for just cause. All three employees were members of the Union. The Union
sought to arbitrate the matter of just cause and contacted Mr. Coughlin to request that he
serve as arbitrator. Galaxy did not oppose this request. Arbitration hearings were
conducted on February 22, 2011 and on April 4, 2011. Thereafter, Mr. Coughlin issued
an opinion and award directing the reinstatement of the employees subject to a two-week
suspension. Galaxy then filed the current action seeking to vacate the arbitration award.
Galaxy asserts that, due to the fact that there was an interim change in counsel for
Galaxy, Galaxy’s new lawyers learned of Mr. Coughlin’s recusal from the 2007
arbitration only after Mr. Coughlin had issued his opinion in the current arbitration.
Galaxy argues that the Union’s failure to mention the 2007 recusal to Galaxy’s new
lawyers was fraudulent, and the award should therefore be vacated. Galaxy also argues
that Mr. Coughlin rendered an award that lacked support in the record.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A petitioner bears the burden of showing that an arbitration award should be
vacated. Handley v. Chase Bank, 387 Fed. Appx. 166, 168 (3d Cir. 2010). Arbitration
awards are entitled to extreme deference and may only be overturned in “exceedingly
narrow circumstances.” Dluhos v. Strasberg, 321 F.3d 365, 370 (3d Cir. 2003) (internal
quotations omitted). Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), a
court may only vacate an arbitration award:
(1) where the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means;
(2) where there was evident partiality or corruption in the arbitrator;
(3) where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone
the hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence
pertinent and material to the controversy; or of any other misbehavior by
which the rights of any party have been prejudiced; or
(4) where the arbitrators exceeded their powers, or so imperfectly executed
them that a mutual, final, and definite award upon the subject matter
submitted was not made.
2
9 U.S.C. § 10(a); Hall Street Associates, LLC v. Matel, 552 U.S. 576, 584 (2008) (“Hall
Street”) (holding that the FAA’s enumerated grounds for vacatur are exclusive).
III.
DISCUSSION
In this case, Galaxy argues that the arbitration award should be vacated for two
reasons: (1) the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means; and (2) the
arbitrator so imperfectly executed his powers that a mutual, final, and definite award
cannot be said to have been made. The Court does not find either argument persuasive.
First, the award was not procured by corruption, fraud, or undue means. The
correspondence between Galaxy and the Union shows that there was no meeting of the
minds on the issue of removing Mr. Coughlin: Galaxy raised the idea of removing Mr.
Coughlin, the Union side-stepped the issue, and Galaxy failed to raise the issue again in
later negotiations. At no time did the Union’s representatives, Mr. Bernadone and Mr.
Goldblatt, agree to remove Mr. Coughlin as a designated arbitrator. Moreover, the Union
can hardly be blamed for the failure of Galaxy’s former counsel to properly transition the
representation to Galaxy’s current counsel. Neither the failure of the parties to come to
an agreement nor Galaxy’s lack of knowledge of past events constitutes corruption, fraud,
or undue means. Thus, the award cannot be vacated on those grounds.
Second, the arbitrator did not execute his powers so imperfectly that a mutual,
final, and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made. Galaxy
requested that the Court review all the evidence from the arbitration, including the
transcripts of the proceedings and all the exhibits, to find that there was a “deficient
performance” by the arbitrator. Reply Br. at 20. The Court declines to do so, as
conducting a searching review of the record before the arbitrator would wildly exceed the
scope of the Court’s reviewing authority. See Stroehmann Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 776,
Int’l Broth. of Teamsters, 969 F.2d 1436, 1441 (3d Cir. 1992) (“Full-blown judicial
review of labor arbitrators’ decisions” would “render the arbitrator’s decision practically
meaningless”). The Court has reviewed the arbitrator’s opinion and finds that the
arbitrator’s just cause determination was grounded in the record evidence and the CBA.
See id. (“[A]s long as the arbitrator’s award is drawn from the essence of the collective
bargaining agreement, a court may not vacate it even if the court finds the basis for it to
be ambiguous or disagrees with its conclusions under the law”); Arbitration Opinion,
Bernadone Aff. Ex. B at 11-12 (discussing witness credibility, photographic evidence,
and the “just cause” standard). The award should therefore be confirmed.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the motion to vacate the arbitration award is
DENIED, and the arbitration award is CONFIRMED. An appropriate order follows.
/s/ William J. Martini
WILLIAM J. MARTINI, U.S.D.J.
Date: November 28, 2012
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?