Roy v. Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Society, Inc.
682 F. App'x 42
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Pierre Roy, a former BPO musician, was terminated and pursued a hybrid §301/fair-representation claim challenging an arbitration award that upheld his termination.
- Roy sought vacatur of the arbitration award, arguing evidentiary exclusion, arbitrator overreach, biased witness consideration, and public-policy grounds.
- Roy also sued the Musicians Association of Buffalo Local No. 92 for breach of the duty of fair representation, alleging inadequate cross-examination, failure to introduce/contest evidence (recordings/transcript), and later that the union demanded a $15,000 deposit for counsel fees.
- The district court denied vacatur, dismissed Roy’s duty-of-fair-representation claim for failure to state a claim, and confirmed the arbitration award; Roy appealed.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the arbitration issues under the limited standards applicable to labor arbitration and reviewed the dismissal of the fair-representation claim de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitrator committed misconduct by excluding Roy’s recordings/transcript | Roy: recordings/transcript were critical evidence and exclusion was misconduct | BPO/Union: arbitrator has broad evidentiary discretion; exclusion was within that discretion | Court: No misconduct; arbitrator’s evidentiary rulings were proper and did not violate fundamental fairness |
| Whether the arbitrator exceeded his powers by considering musical-performance allegations | Roy: CBA bars arbitration for musical incompetence/non-renewal matters | BPO/Union: CBA exclusion applies to incompetence-based non-renewal; here conduct was deliberate impertinence and termination was for cause | Court: Arbitrator did not exceed powers; the competence exclusion was inapplicable because findings showed deliberate conduct, not mere incompetence |
| Whether the award was procured by fraud, partiality, or undue means (biased witnesses/credibility findings) | Roy: colleague testimony was biased and arbitrator improperly credited them, so award was tainted | BPO/Union: arbitrator addressed credibility issues, discounted some testimony, and balanced evidence | Court: No showing of corruption/fraud/undue means; arbitrator reasonably evaluated competing testimony and fashioned a balanced remedy |
| Whether the Union breached its duty of fair representation (including demand for $15,000) | Roy: union acted arbitrarily/badly (poor cross-exam, failure to admit evidence, demanded fee) causing arbitration loss | Union: counsel’s tactical choices fall within reasonable union representation; fee demand (even if improper) not shown to have caused the adverse result | Court: Dismissal proper—allegations amount to tactical errors/at most negligence, not egregious or in bad faith, and Roy failed to show causal connection to arbitration outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (establishes hybrid §301/fair-representation framework)
- United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56 (permits challenging arbitration award when union breach undermines arbitral integrity)
- Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (describing limited judicial review of labor-arbitration awards)
- Nat’l Football League Mgmt. Council v. Nat’l Football League Players Ass’n, 820 F.3d 527 (discussing FAA principles as guidance in labor arbitration)
- Tempo Shain Corp. v. Bertek, Inc., 120 F.3d 16 (arbitrators’ evidentiary rulings are afforded deference absent fundamental unfairness)
- Kolel Beth Yechiel Mechil of Tartikov, Inc. v. YLL Irrevocable Trust, 729 F.3d 99 (vacatur requires corruption, fraud, or undue means)
- Wood v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 807 F.2d 493 (plaintiff must show union conduct contributed to an erroneous arbitrator decision)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: claims must be plausible, not merely conceivable)