A&A Maintenance Enterprise, Inc. v. Ramnarain

Background

A&A Maintenance Enterprise, Inc. provides janitorial and maintenance services. It became the employer for workers at Long Island University’s campus after the university contracted with A&A for janitorial, mechanical, and groundskeeping work. A&A assumed the collective bargaining agreement between the university and Local 1102, a labor union representing building service workers, groundskeepers, and mechanics at the campus.

After the prior agreement expired, A&A and the union negotiated a new collective bargaining agreement. Union members later saw new workers performing building-service work. The union first filed a grievance concerning substitute employees, but later learned that the workers were not members of the bargaining unit. The dispute was submitted to binding arbitration.

Arbitration Awards

The parties described the arbitration issue differently. The union initially referred to substitute employees, while its arbitration submission referred to temporary employees performing bargaining-unit work. A&A argued that the arbitrator could decide only the narrower issue identified in the original grievance.

The arbitrator rejected A&A’s argument and found that A&A violated the agreement by using non-union substitute, temporary, and probationary employees to perform bargaining-unit work. The arbitrator also found that A&A had used its management rights in bad faith by hiring such workers to displace bargaining-unit members and by manipulating a probationary period.

The arbitrator later issued a relief award awarding the union $1,702,263.81 in damages. The arbitrator relied on information provided by the union and declined to extend A&A’s deadline to challenge that information after A&A missed the deadline.

Court’s Analysis

A&A petitioned to vacate, meaning set aside, the liability award. The union cross-petitioned to confirm, meaning enforce, both the liability and relief awards. The court explained that federal law permits a court to vacate an arbitration award only in narrow circumstances, including when an arbitrator exceeds the authority granted by the parties.

The court held that the arbitrator did not exceed that authority. The court viewed the substance of the original grievance as a claim that non-union workers were improperly performing bargaining-unit work. It concluded that the arbitrator was not required to ignore that central dispute merely because the original grievance used the term substitute employees rather than temporary employees and did not list every relevant agreement provision.

The court also rejected A&A’s separate argument that the arbitrator improperly denied an adjournment request. It found that argument unsupported by sufficient facts or legal authority. Because A&A did not meet its burden to show that the arbitrator exceeded his authority, the court confirmed both awards. The court additionally confirmed the relief award because A&A had not provided facts or law supporting its vacatur.

Disposition

A&A’s petition to vacate the December 22, 2018 liability award was DENIED. The union’s cross-petition to confirm the liability award and the April 19, 2019 relief award was GRANTED. The court directed entry of judgment against A&A for $1,702,263.81 and closed the case.