GIRESI v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE

Filing 8

OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Mary L. Cooper on 6/2/2011. (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 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:

June 2, 2011

2