Time Warner Cable of New York City LLC v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3
Filing
38
MEMORANDUM & ORDER. Defendant's 14 MOTION to Dismiss the complaint without prejudice is granted. Plaintiff's 18 Cross-MOTION for summary judgment to confirm is dismissed without prejudice. Defendant's 26 Cross-MOTION for summ ary judgment to vacate on public policy grounds is dismissed without prejudice. Defendant's 26 Cross-MOTION for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on lack of a collective bargaining agreement is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's argument that defendant's motion to vacate the arbitral award as time barred is dismissed as moot; no final arbitration award has yet issued. Ordered by Judge Jack B. Weinstein on 5/21/2015. (Barrett, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
TIME WARNER CABLE OF NEW YORK
CITY LLC,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
15-CV-700
Plaintiff,
- against -
N CLERK'S OFFICE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT E.D.N.V.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
LOCAL UNION NO. 3,
* MAY 22 2015 *
BROOKLYN OFFICE
Defendant.
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. .1
I.
II. Facts.........................................................................................................................................3
Arbitral Awards....................................................................................................................3
III.
Standards of Review............................................................................................................. 5
IV.
Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(1).............................................. 5
A.
Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 56................................... 6
B.
V. Waiver of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.....................................................................................6
Law .................................................................................................................................... 6
A.
Confirmation of Arbitral Awards under the LMRA.....................................................6
1.
Waiver of Right to Object to Arbitration......................................................................6
2.
Application of Law to Facts..............................................................................................7
B.
LMRA...........................................................................................................................7
1.
Waiver...........................................................................................................................7
2.
Confirmation of Award........................................................................................................8
VI.
Law...................................................................................................................................8
A.
Application of Law to Facts..............................................................................................9
B.
VII. Conclusion............................................................................................................................9
JACK B. WEINSTEIN,
I.
Senior United States District Judge:
Introduction
The case arises from an alleged short work stoppage described in Time Warner Cable of
New York City LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3,
14-CV-2437,
2014 WL 1779827 (E.D.N.Y. May 5, 2014) (denying motion for preliminary injunction).
J
1
Plaintiff Time Warner Cable of New York City, LLC ("TWC") sues to confirm and
enforce an interim arbitral award entered on December 12, 2014. ECF No. 1.
Defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No.
3 ("Local 3") moves to dismiss for failure (1) to establish subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) to
state a claim.
Moving pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), Local 3 first claims that the
award is not "final" and the court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction to confirm it. ECF Nos.
14,15,21.
Moving pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Local 3 second alleges that
because TWC "is not seeking confirmation of a final and binding award," the complaint "on its
face fails to state a claim for confirmation" of an arbitral award. ECF No. 15 at 8. See also ECF
No. 21.
TWC opposes dismissal. It cross-moves for summary judgment to confirm the award. It
argues that the award is final in all but ministerial details in calculating damages; it also contends
that any defense to confirmation of the award is time barred. ECF Nos. 18, 19, 32.
Local 3 opposes TWC's cross-motion on the grounds that: (1) the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction because the award is not final; (2) the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, because there
was no collective bargaining agreement; and (3) that its defenses are not time barred. ECF No.
26, 28, 36.
TWC cross-moves for summary judgment to vacate the arbitral award on the ground that
the award violates public policy "rooted in the National Labor Relations Act." Id. TWC
opposes, arguing that (1) no public policy justifies vacating the award; and (2) that defendant, by
participating in the arbitration, waived its right to object to the arbitrability of the dispute. ECF
Nos. 32, 37.
For the reasons stated on the record and referred to below, the court finds that the award
is not final. Confirmation is not appropriate. See Part VI, infra.
Granted is defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. See Part VI. B, infra.
Denied is plaintiffs cross-motion for summary judgment to confirm the award. See Part
VI, infra.
Denied is defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment based on lack of subject
matter jurisdiction due to lack of a collective bargaining agreement, see Part VI, infra.
Defendant's cross-motion to vacate the award based on public policy grounds is denied,
without prejudice, as premature. See Part VI.B, infra.
II.
Facts
The dispute centers on plaintiffs allegations: (1) that defendant's members failed to
accept required company-issued hand tools on April 1, 2014; and (2) that defendant and its
members on April 2, 2014, violated the no-strike provision of the parties' collective bargaining
agreement. See Exhibit B, Arbitral Decision, June 27, 2014, ECF No. 14-3; Exhibit C, Interim
Award, Dec. 12, 2014, ECF No. 14-4; Exhibit F, Interim Award, Jan. 28, 2015, ECF No. 14-7.
III.
Arbitral Awards
On June 27, 2014, an arbitrator found the dispute arbitrable. ECF No. 14-3. Defendant
continued to participate in the proceeding, failing to object to the issue of substantive
arbitrability. See Exhibit A, ECF No. 33-1. Local 3 did object to the timeliness of the arbitral
filing, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, and contention that plaintiff waived right
3
to arbitrate through court filings, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. Exhibit B,
ECF No. 33-2 (post-hearing briefing).
On December 12, 2014, the arbitrator found that defendant "did violate the prohibition
against cessation or stoppage of work contained in the parties' collective bargaining agreement."
Exhibit C, Interim Award Dated December 12, 2014, ECF No. 14-4, 1. He retained continuing
jurisdiction:
[Defendant] shall pay to [plaintiff] a sum equal to the
damages actually incurred by [plaintiff] as a direct result of
this violation, as such damages may be computed by the
Arbitrator after the total number of employees' suspension
hours has been determined in another arbitration
proceeding and communicated to the Arbitrator.
[Defendant] shall also reimburse [plaintiff] for the one day
wage cost of the guard who testified in an ancillary hearing,
as well as contractor costs incurred to cover both the
additional hours contractors worked on April 2, 2014 and
on days when contractors may have been engaged to
perform the work of bargaining unit employees who were
suspended for participation in the work stoppage on April
2, 2014. [Plaintiff] shall submit documentation supporting
the computation of additional contractor costs as set forth
above. At the request of either party, the Arbitrator will
convene a conference call or supplemental hearing to
address [defendant's] reaction to these additional proofs.
The Arbitrator hereby retains jurisdiction for the purpose
of imposing this remedy and any additional remedies in the
instant matter, for computing such remedies, and for the
purpose of resolving any dispute that may arise regarding
the computation or implementation of any remedy issued
pursuant to this Interim Award or subsequent Supplemental
Awards.
Id. at 2 (emphasis added).
At the request of the plaintiff, the arbitrator noted that "no final award has been issued;"
he reopened the case to address the issue of defendant's alleged refusal to accept hand tools on
April 1, 2014. Exhibit F, Interim Award of Arbitrator, Jan. 28, 2015, ECF No. 14-7, at 5. The
arbitrator found that plaintiff's "grievance cannot be sustained." Id. at 11. Again, the arbitrator
noted retention of jurisdiction:
The Arbitrator hereby retains jurisdiction for the purpose
of imposing this remedy and any additional remedies in the
instant matter, for computing such remedies, and for the
purpose of resolving any dispute that may arise regarding
the computation or implementation of any remedy issued
pursuant to any prior or subsequent Supplemental Award.
Id. at 12 (emphasis added).
IV. Standards of Review
A. Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 12(b)(1)
"Determining the existence of subject matter jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry and a
claim is properly dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) when the
district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it." Morrison v. Nat?
Australia Bank Ltd., 547 F.3d 167, 170 (2d Cir. 2008), affd, 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted). "A plaintiff asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it exists." Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted) (citing Makarova v. United States, 201 F. 3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)). A "district
court may consider evidence outside the pleadings." Morrison, 547 F.3d at 170 (citation
omitted).
"In resolving a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, the court must take all facts alleged in
the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, but jurisdiction
must be shown affirmatively, and that showing may not be made by drawing from the pleadings
inferences favorable to the party asserting it." Berkson v. Gogo LLC, 14-CV-1199, 2015 WL
1600755, at *37 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 9, 2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
5
B. Motion for Summary Judgment Pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 56
Summary judgment will be granted when it is shown that there is "no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P.
5 6(a). "In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, a court must resolve all
ambiguities, and draw all inferences, against the movant." G.MM v. Kimpson, 13-CV-5059,
2015 WL 1285704, at * 7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 19, 2015) (quotation marks and citation omitted). See
also Summa v. Hofstra Univ., 708 F.3d 115, 123 (2d Cir. 2013) (same).
V.
Waiver of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
A. Law
1. Confirmation of Arbitral Awards under the LMRA
"Federal courts have jurisdiction pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management
Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185, over petitions to confirm labor arbitration awards."
Porter v. Thompson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., 242 F.3d 367 (2d Cir. 2000) (unpublished);
Local 802, Associated Musicians of Greater N. 1'. v. Parker Meridien Hotel, 145 F.3d 85, 88 (2d
Cir. 1998).
2. Waiver of Right to Object to Arbitration
Objections to arbitrability can be irrevocably waived by the parties' mutual agreement.
See, e.g., Opals on Ice Lingerie v. Bodylines Inc., 320 F.3d 362, 368 (2d Cir. 2003) ("[I]f a party
participates in arbitration proceedings without making a timely objection to the submission of the
dispute to arbitration, that party may be found to have waived its right to object to the
arbitration."); Sokolowski v. Metro. Transp. Auth., 723 F.3d 187, 191 (2d Cir. 2013) (stating
same rule and applying it to a non-arbitral context); Testamentary Trust Under Article Seventh of
Last Will & Testament of Jones v. Watts Inv. Co., 99-CV-10590, 2000 WL 546490, at *4
(S.D.N.Y. May 3, 2000) ("Petitioners waived their right to challenge arbitration of Respondent's
fraud claim because Petitioners participated in arbitrating the merits of this claim and awaited the
arbitrator's decision upon this issue before seeking a stay."); AGCO Corp. v. Anglin, 216 F.3d
589, 593 (7th Cir. 2000) (cited by Opals, 320 F.3d at 368-69) (A party who "willingly and
without reservation allows an issue to be submitted to arbitration.. . cannot await the outcome
and then later argue that the arbitrator lacked authority to decide the matter."). Cf S & G
Flooring, Inc. v. New York City Dist. Counsel of Carpenters Pension Fund, 09-CV-2836, 2009
WL 4931045, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2009) ("A simple statement of reservation of rights is not
enough, however, but rather a 'forceful objection' is necessary to indicate an unwillingness to
submit to arbitration.").
B. Application of Law to Facts
1. LMRA
Defendant argues that this court lacks jurisdiction under section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act to confirm the arbitral award because there was no collective
bargaining agreement in effect between the parties. It relies on an April 2015 recommendation
by a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge. See Exhibit A, Decision of
Administrative Law Judge, Steven Fish, dated April 28, 2015, National Labor Relations Board
Case No. 29-CB-127501, ECF No. 35, at 31. This issue will be on appeal before the National
Labor Relations Board. H'rg Tr., May 18, 2015. The court's jurisdiction has not been
eliminated by the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation.
2. Waiver
By participating in arbitration and failing to raise any substantive objection to the
proceedings, and for the reasons stated on the record at oral argument, defendant arguably has
7
waived its right to challenge the present arbitration and the court's power to confirm any
resulting award. See Part V.A; H'rg Tr., May 18, 2015. Not before this court is the issue of
whether waiver by participation exists should the National Labor Relations Board find that there
was no collective bargaining agreement.
VI. Confirmation of Award
A. Law
Federal courts have jurisdiction under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations
Act to confirm awards that are "final and binding." Gen. Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers,
Local Union No. 89 v. Riss and Co., 372 U.S. 517, 519 (1963) ("[I]f the award at bar is the
parties' chosen instrument for the definitive settlement of grievances under the [Collective
Bargaining] Agreement, it is enforceable under § 301."); Porter v. Thompson Roofing & Sheet
Metal Co., 242 F.3d 367, *1 (2d Cir. 2000) (unpublished) (same).
Awards may be considered "final," despite minor remaining details, such as calculating
backpay. See id. ("[T]he reservation of jurisdiction over a detail like overseeing the precise
amount of back pay owed does not affect the finality of an arbitrator's award."); Burns Intl Sec.
Servs., Inc. v. Int'l Union, United Plant Guard Workers ofAm. (UPGWA) & Its Local 537,
47
F.3d 14,16 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (same); Kalyanaram v. Am. Ass 'n of Univ. Professors at
New York Inst. of Tech., Inc., 742 F.3d 42, 51 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. denied sub nom. Kalyanaram
v. Am. Ass 'n of Univ. Professors at the New York Inst. of Tech., Inc.,
135 S. Ct. 677 (2014), reh 'g
denied sub nom. Kalyanaram v. Am. Assn of Univ. Professors at New York Inst. of Tech., Inc.,
135 S. Ct. 1030 (2015) (subsequent award that merely effectuated "Final Award" did not affect
finality of Award, where arbitrator intent was clear); Local 36, Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass 'n,
AFL-CIO v. Pevely Sheet Metal Co., 951 F.2d 947 (8th Cir. 1992) (holding that an order was not
8
final where the "determination of damages did not merely involve a simple calculation, but
required the resolution of significant issues.").
B. Application of Law to Facts
The award is not yet final. The arbitrator did not intend for it to be final, and repeatedly
stated as much. See Part III, supra. He retained jurisdiction to address other remedies, in
addition to the computation of damages. Id. For the reasons stated by the court on oral argument,
the remaining task of arbitrator in the instant case is much more complex than it was in Burns; it
will require the resolution of significant issues. See H'rg Tr., May 18, 2015; see also Burns, 47
F.3d at 14.
Since the award lacks finality, defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted.
Mooted is defendant's motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6),
for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment to confirm the award is denied without
prejudice.
Defendant's contention that the award would violate public policy is mooted since a final
award is not before the court. The motion to vacate the award is denied without prejudice for the
same reason.
VII.
Conclusion
Defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint without prejudice is granted.
Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment to confirm is dismissed without prejudice.
Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment to vacate on public policy grounds is
dismissed without prejudice.
Defendant's cross-motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on lack of a
collective bargaining agreement is dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiff's argument that defendant's motion to vacate the arbitral award as time barred is
dismissed as moot; no final arbitration award has yet issued.
SO ORDERED.
f
C
/ Jack B.Jeinstein
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: May 21, 2015
Brooklyn, New York
10
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?