148 F. Supp. 3d 12
D.D.C.2015Background
- IL Creations (food-service employer) and Unite Here Local 23 (union) were parties to a CBA that restricted certain job classifications at IL Creations’ facilities to bargaining‑unit employees and established a multi‑step grievance/arbitration procedure with final and binding arbitration.
- In late 2013 IL Creations assigned several chef-type positions at its USDA site to non‑bargaining‑unit employees; Unite Here filed a grievance and the parties proceeded to arbitration after internal steps failed.
- The arbitrator held a hearing, concluded four of five disputed positions required bargaining‑unit work, ordered those positions reclassified, posted, and filled per the CBA, and grandfathered the fifth incumbent until the CBA’s expiration.
- IL Creations refused to comply pending a court order, prompting Unite Here to file under Section 301 of the LMRA to confirm and enforce the award; IL Creations counterclaimed seeking vacatur on jurisdictional and substantive grounds.
- The district court found IL Creations forfeited any arbitrability objection (it did not object before the arbitrator), concluded the arbitrator construed and applied the CBA and his remedy was within his authority, and granted enforcement plus attorneys’ fees to Unite Here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of award | Award is final, binding, and should be confirmed under LMRA §301 | IL Creations refused compliance pending court affirmation | Confirmed: arbitration award enforced |
| Arbitrability / arbitrator jurisdiction | Arbitration was authorized by CBA; arbitrator decided CBA issues | Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because grievance was defective/untimely | Denied: IL Creations waived jurisdictional challenge by not objecting at arbitration |
| Scope of arbitrator’s remedy | Remedy flows from arbitrator’s construction of the CBA and is permissible | Remedy exceeds grievance scope and contravenes CBA | Denied: remedy was based on CBA interpretation and within arbitrator’s remedial discretion |
| Attorneys’ fees | Fees warranted because defendant unjustifiably refused to comply and forced litigation | Defendant implicitly contests fees | Granted: court awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees under its inherent authority |
Key Cases Cited
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (arbitrator’s merits judgement not subject to de novo review)
- Major League Baseball Players Ass’n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 (very limited judicial review of arbitration awards)
- Nat’l Postal Mail Handlers v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 589 F.3d 437 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (arbitrator must be at least arguably construing or applying the contract)
- Madison Hotel v. Hotel & Rest. Emps., Local 25, AFL-CIO, 144 F.3d 855 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (scope of arbitrator’s remedial authority reviewed deferentially)
- Howard Univ. v. Metro. Campus Police Officer’s Union, 512 F.3d 716 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (failure to object to arbitrator’s jurisdiction at arbitration forfeits challenge)
- Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l, 808 F.2d 76 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (award enforceable if it draws its essence from the CBA)
- Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc’y, 421 U.S. 240 (courts’ inherent power to award fees for bad‑faith or frivolous conduct)