HEALTH PROFESSIONALS & ALLIED EMPLOYEES AFT/AFL-CIO v. MHA, LLC
Filing
9
OPINION and ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order pursuant to Rule 65is GRANTED. Defendant shall be temporarily restrained from dissipating its assets,regardless of the assets source (and including those from sale of the ho spital), below $273,935.18. This temporary restraining order shall expire on January 4, 2018 at 6 p.m. Plaintiff shall post a security bond of $5,000 in accordance with Rule 65(c); Court shall hold a hearing on Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction on January 4, 2018 at 2 p.m. Defendant shall file any opposition on or before December 28, 2017. Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before January 3, 2017. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 12/21/17. (ro, )
Not for Publication
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS & ALLIED
EMPLOYEES AFT/AFL-CIO,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No. 17-13301 (JMV)
OPINION AND ORDER
V.
MHA, LLC, doing business as
MEADOWLANDS HOSPITAL MEDICAL
CENTER,
Defendant.
John Michael Vazguez, U.S.D.J.
On December 19, 2017, Plaintiff Health Professionals & Allied Employees AFT/AFL-CIO
(“Plaintiff’) filed a Complaint against Defendant MHA, LLC, doing business as Meadowlands
Hospital Medical Center (“Defendant”) (D.E. 1). On December 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed this
emergency motion for order to show cause with temporary restraints, to be converted to a
preliminary injunction (D.E. 2). Plaintiff included a certificate of service indicating that the motion
was electronically mailed to the General Counsel of Defendant as well as the attorney who had
been representing Defendant in the underlying arbitration proceeding.
Defendant’s attorney,
however, contacted the Court and indicated that he was no longer representing Defendant.
Plaintiffs attorney then called Defendant’s General Counsel and left a voicemail. The General
Counsel did not respond to either the electronic mail or the voice mail. No person representing
Defendant appeared on a scheduled conference call on December 21, 2017. Thus, while it appears
that Defendant has actual notice of this matter, the Court nevertheless considers this motion under
the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b)(l) for issuing a temporary restraining
order without notice.
For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order pursuant
to Rule 65 is GRANTED. Defendant shall be temporarily restrained from dissipating its assets,
regardless of the assets’ source (including monies from the anticipated sale of the hospital), below
$273,935.18. In other words, Defendant must preserve $273,935.18 of its assets (regardless of
source). The temporary restraining order shall expire on January 4, 2018 at 2 pm, at which time
this Court will hold a hearing on Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a labor union, and Defendant, a hospital, were parties to collective bargaining
agreements (CBAs) concerning a registered nurse unit, a technical unit, and a service unit. This
matter concerns the registered nurse and technical unit.
On June 18, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
grievance against Defendant alleging violations of the CBAs that adversely impacted Plaintiffs
members. Compl.
¶ 18.
Pursuant to the CBAs, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into arbitration proceedings before
Arbitrator Michael Pecklers, Esq. (the “Arbitrator”). The Arbitrator issued an Opinion and Award
in favor Plaintiffs members on January 11, 2017. Compl.
¶ 23.
The Arbitrator ruled, in part:
THE GRIEVANCE IS SUSTAINED. THE HOSPITAL
SHALL CEASE AND DESIST FROM ITS FAILURE TO
ADVANCE EMPLOYEES OF THE RN AND THE TECHNICAL
UNIT VERTICALLY ON THE STEPS OF THE SALARY
GUIDES. ALL EMPLOYEES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY
PLACED ON THE CORRECT STEP, COMMENCING WITH
THE YEAR AFTER THE WAGE FREEZE. BACK PAY IS
AWARDED, RETROACTIVE TO TEN (10) DAYS PRIOR TO
The factual background is taken from Plaintiffs Complaint. D.E. 1.
2
THE FILTNG OF THE INSTANT GRIEVANCE ON JUNE 18,
2014, WHICH SHALL BE SUBJECT TO INTEREST AT THE
RATE PROVIDED IN NEW HORIZONS, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987)
AND COMPOUNDED ON A DAILY BASIS AS PRESCRIBED
BY KENTUCKY RIVER MEDICAL CENTER, 356 NLRB 6
(2010). THIS MATTER IS REMANDED TO THE PARTIES FOR
ENFORCEMENT, CONSISTENT WITH THE FOREGOING
GUIDANCE. JURISDICTION IS RETAINED, SOLELY TO
ADDRESS ANY REMEDIAL ISSUES IN THE EVENT THE
SUBSEQUENTLY ARISE. THIS CONSTITUTES THE ENTIRE
AWARD IN THIS CASE.
Compl.J28.
Plaintiff further claims that although Plaintiff has demanded that Defendant comply with
the Arbitrator’s Opinion and Award on multiple occasions since January 11, 2017, Compl.
Defendant has not done so, Compi.
¶f 32-33.
¶ 29,
Defendants have not contested, attempted to modify,
nor attempted to vacate the Arbitrator’s Opinion and Order. Compi. at ¶ 2.
Plaintiff filed this motion in light of the imminent sale of Defendant’s hospital. According
to Plaintiff, Defendant entered into an asset purchase agreement for the sale of its Meadowlands
Hospital Medical Center on May 9, 2016. Compi.
¶
36. On December 15, 2017, the acting
Commissioner of Health approved the sale of the hospital and transfer of the license to operate the
hospital to the third party buyer. Compl.
¶ 40.
Plaintiff states that it was informed by Defendant
that the sale of the hospital and transfer of the license are scheduled to occur on December 22,
2017. Compl.42.
II.
ANALYSIS
This motion typifies an inherent conflict in the relevant labor laws. As the Third Circuit
has observed:
Underlying the issues in this action is a conflict between two
fundamental policies embodied in our national labor laws: 1) the
policy against judicial interference in labor disputes, 29 U.S.C. §
101—15 (1982); and 2) the promotion of the peaceful resolution of
3
labor disputes through voluntary arbitration, 29 U.S.C. § 172(d)
(1982). These policies conflict where, as in this case, intervention
of the federal courts is sought to ensure that one party, through its
actions, does not frustrate the dispute resolution process voluntarily
agreed upon by both parties to the collective bargaining agreement.”
Nursing Home & Hosp. Union No. 434 AFL-CIO-LDIU by Mackson v. Sky Vue Terrace, Inc., 759
f.2d 1094, 1096 (3d
Cir. 1985) (citing cases). “To establish that an order enjoining employer
conduct is necessary to ensure that the arbitral process will not be frustrated, the party seeking the
injunction must prove not only that the underlying disputes are arbitrable, but that the traditional
requirements of injunctive relief—probability of success on the merits, irreparable injury, and a
balance of hardships—support the award.” Sky Vue Terrace, 759 F.2d at 1098 (citing cases).
Accordingly, in order to detennine whether a preliminary injunction should issue, a district
court must consider four factors: “(1) the plaintiff shows that it is likely to succeed on the merits;
(2) the plaintiff establishes that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent issuance of the
injunction; (3) the balance of equities does not disfavor granting an injunction; and (4) public
interest concerns do not outweigh the interests advanced by issuance of the injunction.” Fres-co
Sys. USA, Inc. v. Hawkins, 690 F. App’x 72, 75 (3d Cir. 2017) (internal citation omitted). The
same factors are used to determine a motion for a temporary restraining order. fed’n of State
Massage Therapy Boards v. Acad. of Oriental Therapy, LLC, 2013 WL 5888094, at *1 (D.N.J.
Oct. 28, 2013) (“The decision to issue a preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order
is governed by the same four-factor test.”). Here, the Court finds that these factors militate strongly
in favor of issuing a temporary restraining order.
The Court first finds that Plaintiff has shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the
merits of their claim, especially in light of Defendant’s failure to contest the Arbitrator’s Opinion
or Order, as well as Defendant’s failure to attempt to modify or vacate the Opinion or Order. The
4
Court has no indication that Defendant contests the legitimacy of the Arbitrator’s Opinion and
Award, or the arbitration proceedings themselves.
The Court also finds that Plaintiff has satisfied its burden of showing irreparable harm if
the Court were to deny Plaintiffs request for a temporary restraining order. The Arbitrator’s
Opinion and Award would be rendered futile and frustrate the arbitration process if Defendant
could escape its obligation to comply with the Arbitrator’s Opinion and Award. See SAy Vue
Terrace, 759 F.2d at 1099 (finding irreparable harm when “[a] complete dissolution and
distribution of [defendant’s] assets prior to the arbitration
.
.
.
would render such an award
meaningless, essentially frustrate the arbitration process, and effectively allow [defendant] to
escape its contractual promise to arbitrate disputes over interpretation of the collective bargaining
agreement”). Here, taking into account that Plaintiffs success in gaining an Opinion and Award
in their favor, Defendant’s failure to comply with the Arbitrator’s decision, as well as the scheduled
sale of the hospital on December 22, 2017, Plaintiff has fulfilled its burden to show irreparable
hanm
Here, the balance of hardships on Plaintiff and Defendant weigh in favor of the issuance of
a temporary restraining order. The Court is not restraining all of Defendant’s assets but only those
necessary to enforce the Arbitrator’s Opinion and Award.
On the other hand, Defendant’s
employees represented by Plaintiff have waited almost one year since the Arbitrator’s Opinion and
Award. The Court has no indication that the temporary restraint presents more harm to Defendant
2
Sky View Terrace, the Third Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction on the dissipation of an
employer’s assets when the employer began to sell its assets before the arbitration process had
begun. 759 F.2d at 1099. Here, Plaintiff presents an even stronger case in favor of a temporary
restraining order. Plaintiff has already gone to arbitration against Defendant and won, and
Defendant has failed to comply with the Arbitrator’s Opinion and Award for almost one calendar
year.
5
than the harm to Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court finds that the balance of hardships weigh in
favor of issuing a preliminary injunction. Lastly, the Court finds that it is necessary and in the
public interest to issue a preliminary injunction
—
otherwise the Court runs the risk of allowing
turning Plaintiffs arbitral award into a mere “hollow formality.” See Sicy View, 759 F.2d at 1098
(finding that “an injunction prohibiting the further distribution of [defendant’s] assets was
necessary to ensure that an arbitral award in the union’s favor was more than a ‘hollow formality”
(citation omitted)).
III.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, and for good cause shown, it hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order pursuant to Rule 65
is GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that Defendant shall be temporarily restrained from dissipating its assets,
regardless of the assets’ source (and including those from sale of the hospital), below $273,935.18.
This temporary restraining order shall expire on January 4, 2018, at 6 p.m.; it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff shall post a security bond of $5,000 in accordance with Rule
65(c); it is further
ORDERED that the Court shall hold a hearing on Plaintiffs request for a preliminary
injunction on January 4, 2018 at 2 p.m. Defendant shall file any opposition on or before December
28, 2017. Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before January 3, 2017.
Dated: December 21, 2017
Time:
5.3j
p.m.
John Michael Vazquez,(9$JiiJ.
6
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?