Hermandad Independiente de Empleados Telefónicos v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co.
182 P.R. Dec. 451
| Supreme Court of Puerto Rico | 2011Background
- On June 24, 2005, PRTC dismissed Ive-lisse Vargas Gelabert for alleged violations of its Discipline and Ethics regulations.
- HIETel filed a labor complaint with the Negociado de Conciliación y Arbitraje (arbitration office) alleging improper dismissal.
- The arbitrator repeatedly set hearings; HIETel sought numerous suspensions and the parties received cautions about possible dismissal for nonappearance.
- A schedule notice on September 5, 2008 warned that no suspensions would be granted; HIETel later moved to transfer the hearing date.
- The December 17, 2008 hearing proceeded with Vargas Gelabert and HIETel absent; the arbitrator ordered the case closed with prejudice.
- HIETel challenged the ruling in trial court, then Court of Appeals, which reversed and ordered sanctions on HIETel’s attorney before remitting the case back to arbitration; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator properly dismissed with prejudice for nonappearance. | HIETel contends dismissal was improper abuse of discretion. | PRTC argues the arbitrator acted within discretionary authority under the governing rules. | Arbitrator acted within discretion to dismiss with prejudice. |
| What governs the arbitration procedure under the collective agreement. | HIETel asserts newer rules/regulations control. | PRTC argues the 2002 collective agreement fixes the applicable regulatory regime. | Regime fixed by the 2002 collective agreement (Art. 57, Sec. 3) governs. |
| Whether the trial court/appellate misapplied civil procedure rules to arbitration. | HIETel argues Rule 39.2(a) should guide sanctions. | PRTC contends civil rules do not apply to arbitration. | Civil procedure rules do not govern arbitration; arbitration rules apply. |
| Whether reopening/reinstating the arbitration after dismissal was permissible. | HIETel contends the remedy should be reinitiation with sanctions against opposing counsel. | PRTC asserts re-opening would unduly prejudice the employer and witnesses. | The arbitration panel could not or should not reopen; the dismissal remained proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Condado Plaza v. Asoc. Emp. Casinos P.R., 149 D.P.R. 347 (1999) (arbitration as a substitute forum for court where appropriate)
- López v. Destilería Serrallés, 90 D.P.R. 245 (1964) (collective bargaining framework and arbitration preference)
- S.I.U. de P.R. v. Otis Elevator Co., 105 D.P.R. 832 (1977) (labor arbitration favored for speedy dispute resolution)
- U.I.L. de Ponce v. Dest. Serrallés, Inc., 116 D.P.R. 348 (1985) (collective bargaining significance and balancing interests)
- C.O.P.R. v. S.P.U., 181 D.P.R. 299 (2011) (labor arbitration process and deference to arbitral interpretation)
- Pérez v. Autoridad Fuentes Fluviales, 87 D.P.R. 118 (1963) (principles of deference to arbitral process and contract interpretation)
- J.R.T. v. P.R. Telephone Co., Inc., 107 D.P.R. 76 (1978) (nonappearance considerations in arbitration context)
- J.R.T. v. Hato Rey Psychiatric Hosp., 119 D.P.R. 62 (1987) (due process considerations in arbitration context)