Perrigo New York v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 210

Background

Perrigo New York, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union 210 were parties to a collective bargaining agreement containing a grievance and arbitration procedure. The agreement required grievances to be submitted in writing within five business days of the event triggering the grievance. It also provided that arbitration decisions would be final and binding and could be enforced in court.

The parties later agreed to revised vacation-scheduling provisions. Perrigo implemented a first-come, first-served system instead of the prior seniority-based system, effective January 1, 2020. After employees complained, the Union filed a grievance on August 18, 2020, and later demanded arbitration.

Following an April 9, 2021, hearing, Arbitrator Bonnie Siber Weinstock issued an award on July 23, 2021. The arbitrator dismissed the Union’s grievance as not arbitrable because the Union had not filed it within five business days of the triggering event. The arbitrator concluded that the deadline ended in January, when the system was implemented and the Union had received complaints about it.

Confirmation of the Award

Perrigo petitioned under Section 9 of the Federal Arbitration Act, a federal law governing enforcement of arbitration awards, and Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. The Union participated in the arbitration but did not appear in this court action or oppose the petition, and it did not timely file an answer.

The court treated the unanswered petition as an unopposed motion for summary judgment. Although courts use that standard for confirmation petitions, review of labor arbitration awards is narrowly limited. The court does not reconsider the arbitrator’s decision on the merits; it asks whether the arbitrator acted within the authority granted by the collective bargaining agreement and whether the award was grounded in that agreement.

The court found no genuine dispute requiring a trial. The agreement clearly required a grievance to be filed within five business days, while the Union waited seven months after the new system was implemented. The record supported the arbitrator’s finding that the grievance was untimely, and the arbitrator had applied the agreement while acting within her authority. Perrigo was therefore entitled to confirmation of the award.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Perrigo also requested its litigation costs. The court denied that request. Perrigo provided no legal basis or details supporting the request, and the court found no evidence that the Union had failed to comply with the arbitration award. The court explained that fees and costs may be awarded in this setting when a party unjustifiably refuses to follow an arbitrator’s decision, but the record did not establish that circumstance here.

Disposition

The petition was granted in part. The arbitration award was confirmed, Perrigo’s request for attorney’s fees and costs was denied, and the Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.