846 F.3d 716
4th Cir.2017Background
- Brown & Pipkins, LLC (B&P) provided janitorial services at Fort Belvoir; a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with SEIU Local 32BJ became effective May 17, 2013 (retroactive to Sept. 4, 2012).
- The Union filed four grievances (hours reduction, drivers’ pay, vacation pay, and monies owed) and Arbitrator Garvin Lee Oliver heard each without transcripts.
- Arbitrator awards: (1) Hours Reduction Award — restored 40‑hour workweek and back pay after B&P cut full‑time hours to 35; (2) Drivers’ Pay Award — required higher “Custodian/Driver” rate for two employees; (3) Vacation Pay Award — ordered payment for accrued unused vacation for certain employees; (4) Monies Owed Award — ordered payment to two employees with interest (arbitrator credited prior payments only if consistent with award).
- B&P sued in district court to vacate two awards and opposed the others; the Union sought confirmation of all awards and attorneys’ fees. The district court confirmed all four awards but did not address attorneys’ fees.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the awards should be vacated, applying the highly deferential standard for arbitrators construing CBAs, and addressed whether the Union waived its fee claim by failing to file a Rule 54(d) motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hours Reduction Award should be vacated for ignoring broad management‑rights language in the CBA | Arbitrator ignored Article 3’s sweeping management rights and improperly used Article 6 to limit them | Arbitrator reasonably balanced competing CBA provisions and construed the contract | Denied vacatur; arbitrator construed the CBA and was within authority under deferential review |
| Whether the Hours Reduction Award was procedurally untimely (Step 1) and thus barred | Union’s grievance was untimely under the CBA’s 3‑day Step 1 requirement | Arbitrator applied mitigating circumstances and the continuing‑violation doctrine to find timeliness | Denied vacatur; arbitrator could apply continuing‑violation doctrine and assess procedural arbitrability |
| Whether Drivers’ Pay Award exceeded authority by broadening “driver” classification and misweighing facts | B&P: term shouldn’t include employees who used their own cars; arbitrator ignored favorable testimony | Union: arbitrator permissibly used extrinsic evidence and predecessor practices to define ambiguous term | Denied vacatur; arbitrator construed ambiguous terms using extrinsic evidence and factual findings are insulated from review |
| Whether the Union waived attorneys’ fees by failing to file a Rule 54(d) motion after judgment | Union: fully briefed fees below; district court’s silence and request in pleadings suffice | B&P: Rule 54(d) requires a post‑judgment motion within 14 days; no statute or order altered that requirement | Held that the Union waived its fee claim by not filing a proper Rule 54(d) motion; Rule 54(d) governs fee requests absent statutory or court‑ordered deviation |
Key Cases Cited
- Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (arbitrator’s decision is subject to very limited judicial review)
- PPG Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union Council of United Food & Commercial Workers, 587 F.3d 648 (4th Cir.) (courts must defer when arbitrator is arguably construing the contract)
- Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 363 U.S. 593 (1959) (arbitrators have broad latitude in fashioning remedies)
- United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (industrial common law and extrinsic practices inform CBA interpretation)
- National Postal Mail Handlers Union v. American Postal Workers Union, 589 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir.) (deference to arbitrator on procedural arbitrability under a CBA)