Transport Workers Union of America, Local 252, AFL-CIO v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc.
24 F. Supp. 3d 223
E.D.N.Y2014Background
- Transport Workers Union Local 252 (Petitioner) and Veolia/Nassau Inter-County Express (Respondent) are parties to a broad CBA (2012–2017) that requires arbitration of disputes "arising out of the interpretation or application" of the CBA.
- Petitioner scheduled multiple grievances for arbitration before Arbitrator Edelman in July 2012; Respondent refused to present more than one grievance that day, asserting a "one case per arbitration per month" practice.
- After a July 12, 2012 conference, Arbitrator Edelman declined to rule on whether multiple grievances may be heard at one session and advised the parties to submit the issue to another arbitrator.
- Petitioner served a Notice and Demand to arbitrate the question whether Respondent’s limitation on multiple grievances per hearing violated the CBA and sought to have the issue heard by Arbitrator Wittenberg on a pre-scheduled date; Respondent refused.
- Petitioner filed this action under the FAA and LMRA to compel arbitration of whether the CBA permits/compels/prohibits hearing multiple grievances at a single arbitration session; the only issue before the court was arbitrability of that question.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the dispute over hearing multiple grievances at one arbitration session is subject to arbitration under the CBA | The CBA’s broad arbitration clause covers any dispute about interpretation or application of the CBA, including scheduling/process issues | The CBA does not expressly provide for arbitration of arbitration-procedure disputes and does not permit multiple cases per day; thus the dispute is not covered | Court held the dispute is within the scope of the CBA’s arbitration clause and must be arbitrated |
| Whether the court should decide merits (e.g., whether CBA allows multiple grievances per day) | Petitioner: court should compel arbitration of the arbitrability question, not decide merits | Respondent: merits show arbitration clause inapplicable so court should deny compulsion | Court: merits are for arbitrator; court only decides arbitrability and found arbitration required |
| Timeliness, ripeness, or preclusion defenses to arbitration demand | Petitioner: procedural defenses are for arbitrator to decide | Respondent: demand was untimely, unripe, and/or already decided in its favor | Court: those defenses are for the arbitrator to resolve after arbitration is compelled |
| Whether prior communications (conference call, emails) resolved the issue | Petitioner: no final ruling was issued; issue remains arbitrable | Respondent: prior call/email effectively decided dispute | Court: factual/procedural effect of those communications is for arbitrator, not court |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard and genuine dispute definition)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmovant must show specific facts creating genuine issue)
- Vera v. Saks & Co., 335 F.3d 109 (CBA arbitrability is a judicial question; broad clauses presumed to cover disputes)
- Transit Mix Concrete Corp. v. Local Union No. 282, 809 F.2d 963 (presumption of arbitrability; doubts resolved in favor of coverage)
- Arciniaga v. Gen. Motors Corp., 460 F.3d 231 (strong federal policy favoring arbitration)
- Ross v. American Express Co., 547 F.3d 137 (FAA reflects federal policy favoring arbitration)
- Bensadoun v. Jobe-Riat, 316 F.3d 171 (summary judgment standard applies to motions to compel arbitration)