994 F. Supp. 2d 205
D.P.R.2014Background
- Union member Billy Crespo was terminated July 7, 2008; the CBA (Article 9) prescribes a three-step grievance process with a 10-working-day window to file for arbitration after the Committee’s five-day decision period expires.
- The Union pursued step two, the Company convened the Complaints and Grievances Committee for July 22, 2008, but the Committee neither reached nor notified any decision.
- The Union filed for arbitration with Puerto Rico’s Bureau on December 10, 2008, more than four months after the Committee was convened.
- At arbitration the parties agreed the arbitrator would first decide procedural arbitrability (timeliness); the arbitrator held he lacked jurisdiction because the arbitration demand was untimely and dismissed the case.
- The Union sued in Puerto Rico court to vacate the award arguing the Committee’s failure to notify meant the ten-day filing period never began and that the award was not rendered "according to law;" Cervecería removed under LMRA § 301 and moved to confirm the award.
- The district court applied the narrow standard of review for labor arbitration awards, found the arbitrator’s procedural-timeliness ruling plausible and consistent with the CBA, denied vacatur, granted summary judgment to enforce the award, and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may fully review the arbitrator because the CBA requires decisions be "according to law" | The phrase permits plenary judicial review to ensure arbitrator acted according to law | Phrase means arbitrator must consider applicable law on the merits; does not alter deferential review of arbitration awards | Court: "according to law" does not abrogate narrow, deferential judicial review; Union's argument rejected |
| Whether the arbitrator correctly ruled the arbitration request was untimely under Article 9 (procedural arbitrability) | Time to file never began because Committee never notified a decision, so Union’s December filing was timely | Article 9’s plain language starts the 10-day filing period after the five-day decision term expires or after the Union receives the answer; time runs regardless of notification | Court: Arbitrator’s interpretation was plausible and within his authority; award draws its essence from the CBA and is enforceable |
| Whether the "continuing-violation" exception makes the grievance timely | Grievance is continuing because the Committee continually refuses to notify resolution, so filing period renews each day | Continuing-violation doctrine applies to the underlying discriminatory act, not to procedural grievance steps; here inapplicable | Court: Exception inapplicable to procedural time limits; argument fails |
| Whether the arbitration award should be vacated and summary judgment denying enforcement granted | Vacatur urged due to alleged legal error and lack of jurisdiction | Enforce award; narrow review forecloses second-guessing arbitrator on procedural arbitrability | Court: Denied vacatur; granted defendant’s summary judgment to confirm and enforce the award |
Key Cases Cited
- United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (United States Supreme Court) (award must draw its essence from the CBA)
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543 (United States Supreme Court) (procedural arbitrability issues are for the arbitrator)
- Misco, Inc. v. United Paperworkers Int’l Union, 484 U.S. 29 (United States Supreme Court) (parties are bound by arbitrator’s view of facts and contract meaning)
- PowerShare, Inc. v. Syntel, Inc., 597 F.3d 10 (1st Cir. 2010) (federal review of arbitral awards is very narrow)
- Bechtel Construction, Inc. v. Laborers’ Int’l Union, 812 F.2d 750 (1st Cir. 1987) (failure to submit grievance to required committee is a question of procedural arbitrability)
- UMass Memorial Medical Center, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 527 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (high threshold for judicial interference with arbitral awards)