President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Harvard Graduate Students Union - United Autoworkers, Local 5118
1:24-cv-11952
| D. Mass. | May 23, 2025Background
- The dispute centers on whether Harvard failed to classify psychology PhD students conducting research as Research Assistants under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Harvard Graduate Students Union (the Union).
- The CBA defines a bargaining unit including graduate students employed by Harvard as Research Assistants, regardless of their funding sources; the dispute involves whether certain psychology PhD students should be in this unit.
- After hearing a grievance from the Union representing a group of psychology graduate students excluded from appointment letters and bargaining unit lists, the Arbitrator ruled in the Union’s favor on both timeliness and the merits, directing Harvard to treat the students as Research Assistants and remedy lost benefits.
- Harvard sued to vacate the arbitral award, claiming the grievance was not arbitrable, was untimely, and the award violated public policy; both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The Court applied a highly deferential standard to review of arbitral awards, only allowing vacatur in cases of plain contract contravention or violation of explicit public policy.
- The Court ultimately confirmed the arbitral award, granting the Union costs but denying attorney’s fees and interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's (Harvard) Argument | Defendant's (Union) Argument | Held (Court's Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substantive Arbitrability | The students are not "employees" under the NLRA, so their grievance is not arbitrable. | CBA defines unit independently of NLRA and covers these students. | CBA's unit definition controlled; Arbitrator's interpretation plausible. |
| Procedural Arbitrability (Timeliness) | Grievance was untimely under CBA, notice given earlier via lists and prior grievance. | Grievance was timely; lists/other gripes did not trigger deadline. | Arbitrator’s finding of timeliness was plausible; court defers. |
| Public Policy | Award violates the NLRA by unionizing non-employees and depriving them of representation choice. | No violation; students retain unionization choice, CBA allows this structure. | No clear, explicit public policy violated by enforcing arbitral award. |
| Relief: Costs, Fees, and Interest | Award of costs, fees, and interest is unwarranted. | Seeks all three as prevailing party. | Costs granted; attorney’s fees/interest denied (arguments not frivolous). |
Key Cases Cited
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (standard for vacating arbitral awards is extremely deferential)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, Int’l Union of United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers, 461 U.S. 757 (court may not overrule arbitrator even when it disagrees with contract interpretation)
- Providence J. Co. v. Providence Newspaper Guild, 271 F.3d 16 (arbitral decisions are reviewed narrowly, requiring only plausible contract interpretation)
- Cytyc Corp. v. DEKA Prods. Ltd. P’ship, 439 F.3d 27 (court may vacate award only when it plainly contravenes contract)
- Mercy Hosp., Inc. v. Mass. Nurses Ass’n, 429 F.3d 338 (public policy exception to enforcing arbitration awards is very narrow)