Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Service Employees International Union-United…
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. v. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:22-cv-05113
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Kaiser v. Service Employees, Judge Chhabria denied dismissal of Kaiser’s arbitration lawsuit and said an arbitrator should address timeliness.
The ruling affected Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and the other plaintiffs, as well as Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, by allowing Kaiser’s arbitration-related lawsuit to proceed past the motion to dismiss.
What happened
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and other plaintiffs sued Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West over whether Kaiser could seek arbitration under collective bargaining agreements. The union argued that only it could start the grievance process, so Kaiser’s lawsuit should be dismissed.
The court found that the agreements were at least ambiguous. Although some language suggested that only the union could begin the process, other language required all covered disputes to go through the grievance procedure. Because of the strong presumption favoring arbitration, the court resolved that ambiguity in Kaiser’s favor.
The court denied the motion to dismiss. Judge Vince Chhabria also said that questions about whether Kaiser waited too long or waived arbitration generally should be decided by the arbitrator, not the court, and scheduled a case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Kaiser Foundation Health Plan v. Service Employees International Union-United… · No. 3:22-cv-05113
- Vince Chhabria
- Feb. 24, 2023
Background
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and other plaintiffs brought claims seeking an order compelling arbitration under grievance and arbitration procedures in collective bargaining agreements. Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU) moved to dismiss.
SEIU argued that the agreements allowed only the union to initiate a grievance. It relied on provisions stating that the grievance procedure would begin at Step One when the union submitted a grievance form, including a provision referring to a union steward representing an employee.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the agreements were ambiguous on whether Kaiser could initiate arbitration. The grievance-step provisions suggested that only the union could begin the process, but other provisions defined a grievance broadly as every dispute about the agreement, wages, hours, or working conditions and required all such disputes to be subject to the grievance procedure.
The court held that, on the record before it, the ambiguity had to be resolved in Kaiser’s favor because of the strong presumption favoring arbitration. The lawsuit therefore could not be dismissed on the ground that only SEIU could initiate the grievance procedure.
SEIU also argued that the court should decline to compel arbitration because Kaiser had not pursued arbitration in a timely manner. The court stated that once a dispute is found subject to mandatory arbitration, procedural questions ordinarily should be left to the arbitrator. The court acknowledged that SEIU cited cases discussing rare circumstances in which a court might consider procedural objections, but found that the record here was not clear enough to remove questions about timeliness and waiver from the arbitrator.
Ruling and Case Status
Judge Vince Chhabria denied SEIU’s motion to dismiss. The order did not itself state that arbitration was compelled; it said that further proceedings might not be necessary before the court compels arbitration and directed the parties to be prepared to discuss that issue at a case-management conference scheduled for March 8, 2023. A joint case-management statement was due March 1, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.