Roseton Generating LLC v. Local 320 of the International Brotherhood of…

Background

Roseton Generating LLC petitioned under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act to vacate Arbitrator Erica Tener’s March 6, 2023 award. The award sustained a grievance filed by Local 320 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers concerning payment of a Social Security supplement to former Roseton employee Michael Putnam and other employees who might qualify for the benefit in the future.

The dispute arose from several collective bargaining agreements and related memoranda involving the Roseton power plant. The current 2020–2025 collective bargaining agreement incorporated certain supplemental agreements by reference. Local 320 filed the Putnam Grievance in September 2021. Roseton denied it at the first and second steps of the grievance process, and the parties disputed whether Local 320 had timely advanced it to the next step.

After a November 2022 arbitration hearing, Arbitrator Tener found that the grievance was arbitrable, that Putnam was entitled to the Social Security supplement, and that the remedy calculation required input from an actuary. She directed the parties to confer about the remedy and retained jurisdiction if they could not agree.

Roseton’s arguments

Roseton moved for summary judgment seeking to vacate the award. It argued that Arbitrator Tener exceeded her authority by:

Local 320 opposed vacatur and asked the court to confirm the award. Although Local 320 had not formally filed a separate motion to confirm, the court treated its opposition as a motion to confirm because motions to vacate and confirm present the same issues for judicial determination.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that review of a labor arbitration award is extremely limited. The court’s task was not to reconsider the dispute’s merits, but to determine whether the arbitrator was at least arguably interpreting or applying the collective bargaining agreement and acting within the scope of her authority. An award generally may be vacated only on the statutory grounds listed in the Federal Arbitration Act or, more rarely, for a serious disregard of the law.

Arbitrability and procedural deadlines. The court held that whether the grievance complied with the agreement’s procedural deadlines was a question for the arbitrator, not the court. Arbitrator Tener had considered the relevant grievance-procedure language and the parties’ evidence. The court concluded that she had applied the contract rather than adding language to it or disregarding its deadlines. Her finding that the grievance was arbitrable therefore did not exceed her authority.

2013 memorandum. The court also rejected Roseton’s challenge to Arbitrator Tener’s treatment of the April 1, 2013 Memorandum of Agreement. Arbitrator Tener had considered the supplemental-agreement provision in the current collective bargaining agreement and reasonably inferred from the omission of the 2013 memorandum that the parties did not intend its requirement to remain in effect. The court noted that an arbitrator need not address every argument raised by the parties. It also found that Roseton had offered limited and unpersuasive evidence for its theory that the 2013 memorandum had become an agreement between Roseton and Local 320 through Castleton’s adoption and later assignment of agreements.

The court further stated that Roseton’s disagreement with the arbitrator’s interpretation was not a valid basis for vacating the award. The court also rejected Roseton’s argument that Arbitrator Tener was bound by an earlier arbitrator’s interpretation. Even assuming the earlier arbitrator had made the finding Roseton described, the court stated that Arbitrator Tener could interpret the contract differently.

Actuarial remedy. The court held that Arbitrator Tener did not exceed her remedial authority by requiring actuarial input. She found that the record did not contain enough evidence to calculate the benefit precisely and directed the parties to use an actuary. The court concluded that this was a permissible method of determining the monetary remedy, even though an actuary was not expressly mentioned in the collective bargaining agreement.

Disposition

The court held that Roseton had not established any basis for vacating the award. The court therefore denied Roseton’s motion to vacate and granted Local 320’s motion to confirm. The Clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case.