GIRESI v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
Filing
15
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 7/22/2011. (mmh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MARK GIRESI, a member of IBT
(Teamsters) Local # 177,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1944 (MLC)
O P I N I O N
THE PLAINTIFF, Mark Giresi, bringing this action to vacate
an arbitration award resolving a grievance brought on behalf of
Plaintiff by his union, IBT (Teamsters) Local # 177 (the
“Union”), in which the arbitrator found that Defendant, United
Parcel Service (“UPS”), had “just cause” for terminating
Plaintiff’s employment (dkt. entry no. 1, Rmv. Not., Ex. A,
Compl.); and UPS moving to dismiss the Complaint on the basis
that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the arbitration award
(dkt. entry no. 5, Mot. to Dismiss); and Plaintiff cross-moving
to vacate the arbitration award, relying on the Complaint in
support of the cross motion (dkt. entry no. 7, Mot. to Vacate);
and
IT APPEARING that where a collective bargaining agreement
(“CBA”) “mandates that the Union has exclusive power to enforce
the employees’ rights in dispute resolution, an individual
employee may not bring an action to vacate an arbitration award,”
except “where the Union breached its duty of fair
representation,” Provo v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co., No. 102374, 2010 WL 4225920, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2010); see also
Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186 (1967); Adams v. Crompton &
Knowles Corp., 587 F.Supp. 561, 562 (D.N.J. 1982); and
IT FURTHER APPEARING that (1) the CBA between UPS and the
Union provides that the multi-step grievance procedure set forth
therein “may be invoked only by authorized Union representatives”
(dkt. entry no. 5, Lario Cert., Ex. 2, CBA Art. 44 § 2 (emphasis
added)); (2) Plaintiff was not a party to the arbitration (Lario
Cert., Ex. 4, Arb. Op. and Award; Compl. at ¶ 26); and (3)
Plaintiff has made no allegation that the Union breached its duty
of fair representation (see generally Compl.); and
THE COURT considering the Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to
the motion (dkt. entry no. 13, Pl. Br.); and the Plaintiff
arguing, without citation to any controlling authority, that he
has standing to challenge the arbitration award because “a
union’s obligation or duty to provide representation to a member
ends with the arbitrator’s decision” (id. at 3); and the
Plaintiff relying on F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Misc. Warehousemen’s
Union, 629 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1980); but the Court determining
that F.W. Woolworth Co. (1) is not binding on this Court, (2)
announced an exception to the rule that an individual employee
may not bring an action to challenge an arbitration award,
2
holding that it would “allow[] employees to defend against a suit
[brought by an employer] seeking to vacate an arbitration award
favorable to the Union [and by extension, the employees] when the
Union chooses not to but otherwise acquiesces in the employees’
action,” see Martin v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 911 F.2d
1239, 1244 (7th Cir. 1990), and (3) is distinguishable here,
insofar as it observed that it did not involve “efforts by
individual employees to set aside the ultimate result of the
grievance procedure, namely the arbitration award,” as the
Plaintiff seeks to do here, 629 F.2d at 1210; and the Court
finding that the Plaintiff has presented no basis for this Court
to depart from the rule in Vaca, 386 U.S. at 186, and Adams, 587
F.Supp. at 562; and
THE COURT therefore concluding that Plaintiff lacks standing
to challenge the arbitration award; and the Court intending to
grant the motion and deny the cross motion; and the Court
deciding the motion and cross motion on the papers, see
Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); and for good cause appearing, the Court will
issue an appropriate order and judgment.
s/ Mary L. Cooper
MARY L. COOPER
United States District Judge
Dated:
July 22, 2011
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?