Unite Here Local 100 v. Westchester Hills Golf Club, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 262

Timothy Cremin, a bartender employed by Westchester Hills Golf Club (WHGC), was discharged on December 7, 2013; UNITE HERE Local 100 grieved and arbitrated the discharge.
Parties were bound by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with a mandatory grievance/arbitration procedure; Cremin had previously been reinstated by a 2010 arbitration award that included a “Final Warning.”
WHGC had earlier offered Cremin a Last Chance Agreement (LCA) in late 2011 resolving a threatened termination; the LCA purported to allow summary termination for future infractions.
After a complaint about Cremin’s conduct at an August 2013 event, WHGC suspended and later terminated him; an arbitrator in December 2014 issued the 2015 Award voiding the LCA, finding no just cause, and ordering reinstatement with back pay.
UNITE HERE sought court confirmation of the 2015 Award after WHGC refused to comply; WHGC moved to vacate the award on three main grounds (disregard of 2010 Award, invalidation of the LCA, and failure to mitigate damages).
The District Court confirmed the 2015 Award, granted pre-judgment interest at New York’s statutory 9% rate, denied vacatur, and denied UNITE HERE’s request for attorneys’ fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by ignoring the 2010 Award’s “Final Warning”	Arbitrator properly interpreted that the Final Warning did not apply to Cremin’s conduct	Final Warning permitted summary discharge and was wrongly disregarded	Denied vacatur — arbitrator considered and applied the 2010 Award; courts may not second-guess factual or contractual interpretations that are at least colorably justified.
Whether the LCA was enforceable	LCA unenforceable because it settled a grievance without union involvement, contravening Article 28 of the CBA	LCA valid and allowed WHGC to terminate Cremin independently	Denied vacatur — arbitrator reasonably found the LCA resolved a grievance and was unenforceable under the CBA.
Whether arbitrator failed to consider mitigation in awarding back pay	Award included back pay but record showed Cremin attempted to mitigate; arbitrator considered and rejected WHGC’s mitigation claim	Arbitrator ignored mitigation duty and award is arbitrary and capricious	Denied vacatur — arbitrator noted mitigation evidence and reasonably rejected defendant’s position; courts cannot disturb such factual determinations.
Whether attorneys’ fees and costs should be awarded to union	Union sought fees as prevailing party enforcing award	WHGC contested merits but did not act in bad faith	Denied — no contractual or statutory basis; fees would require bad-faith or frivolous conduct, which was not shown.

Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 133 S. Ct. 2064 (U.S. 2013) (arbitral awards are vacated only in very unusual circumstances; review limited to whether arbitrator arguably interpreted the contract)
Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. Animal-Feeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2010) (arbitrator exceeds authority when dispensing his own brand of industrial justice)
Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (U.S. 2001) (same principle re: limits on arbitral authority)
Wallace v. Buttar, 378 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2004) (arbitral awards stand if there is a barely colorable justification)
Westerbeke Corp. v. Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd., 304 F.3d 200 (2d Cir. 2002) (factual findings and contractual interpretation by arbitrator are not subject to judicial challenge)
Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Serv., 754 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2014) (LMRA review standard is materially the same as FAA review)
Waterside Ocean Navigation Co. v. Int’l Navigation Ltd., 737 F.2d 150 (2d Cir. 1984) (court has inherent authority to award pre-judgment interest in confirming arbitral awards)