1199seiu United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs.

• Decision Date: 19 February 2021
• Docket Number: 20-cv-3611 (JGK)
• Parties: 1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, Petitioner, v. PSC COMMUNITY SERVICES, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

520 F.Supp.3d 588

1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, Petitioner,

v.PSC COMMUNITY SERVICES, et al., Respondents.

20-cv-3611 (JGK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed February 19, 2021

James Michael Reif, Gladstein, Reif, Meginniss, Kimberly Lehmann, Laureve Daniele Blackstone, Levy Ratner, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Michael Patrick Collins, Mallory Campbell, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York, NY, for Respondent PSC Community Services.

James Joseph Sawczyn, Patrick G. Brady, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Newark, NJ, for Respondent New Partners, Inc.

Philip K. Davidoff, FordHarrison LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Richmond Home Needs, Sunnyside Home Care Project, Sunnyside Citywide Home Care, Family Home Care of Brooklyn and Queens, Care at Home.

Kenneth Harold Kirschner, David Justin Baron, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, United Jewish Council of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp.

Douglas Joseph Klein, Felice B. Ekelman, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondent The First Chinese Presbyterian Community Affairs Home Attendant Corp.

Douglas Joseph Klein, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Eric Philip Simon, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Azor Home Care, Bushwick Stuyvesant Heights Home Attendant, Inc., CABS Homecare, Riverspring Licensed Homecare Services Agency, Inc., St. Nicholas Human Supports Corp., Wartburg.

Felice B. Ekelman, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Alliance for Health, Inc., AccentCare of NY, Inc.

Ira David Wincott, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC, New Hyde Park, NY, Lisa Marie Griffith, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Melville, NY, for Respondent Region Care, Inc.

Gregory R. Begg, Shannon Danielle Azzaro, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., River Edge, NJ, for Respondents Prestige Home Care, Inc., Prestige Home Attendant, Inc., Personal Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc.

James E. McGrath, III, Rebecca Kim Kimura, Putney Twombly Hall & Hirson LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Priority Home Services, Premier Home Health Care, Inc.

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The Petitioner, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East ("1199SEIU" or the "Union"), seeks to confirm an arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (the "LMRA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185. The award, issued on April 17, 2020 (the "Award"), was rendered pursuant to collective bargaining agreements (the "CBAs") between the Union and each of the Respondents,¹ a group of home care agencies, and it potentially affects more than 100,000 current and former home care employees represented by the Union. Two groups of parties, former employees of respondents Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program ("CPC") and United Jewish Council of the East Side Human Attendant Service ("UJC") (together, "Proposed Intervenors") have filed motions to intervene and dismiss or stay the petition. Non-party Gail Yan ("Non-Party Yan") has also filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.²

For the reasons that follow, the Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene is DENIED , the motions to dismiss or stay are DENIED , and the petition to confirm the arbitration award is GRANTED .

I. Facts

The following facts are taken from the Petition and declarations filed by the parties and are undisputed unless otherwise noted.

1199SEIU is a labor union, that serves as the sole and exclusive representative for the Respondents’ home health aide employees, including for purposes of collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of their employment. See Pet. ¶ 6. The Respondents are licensed home care agencies. Id. ¶ 3. The Union is a party to a substantially similar CBA with each of the Respondents. Id. ¶ 7.

It is uncontested that each of the CBAs included a grievance and arbitration procedure that provides, in relevant part:

1. A grievance is defined as any dispute between the Union (on its behalf and/or on behalf of any Employee) with the Employer involving the proper application, interpretation, or compliance with the specific written provisions of the Agreement based on facts and circumstances occurring during the term of this Agreement. A grievance is subject to arbitration.

2. Grievances will be resolved in accordance with the following procedure....

Step 4 -- If the grievance is not resolved at Step 3, the Union and/or Employer may within ten (10) days thereafter request that the matter be submitted for final and binding arbitration under the Labor Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association.

3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a grievance that affects a substantial number of Employees and is outside the authority of the Employer's representatives designated in Steps 1 and 2 may be presented initially at Step 3 of the grievance procedures. This grievance must be presented in writing and within ten (10) days of the occurrence which gave rise to the grievance....

5. The opinion and award of the arbitrator must be made in writing and is final and binding upon all parties. The arbitrator has full authority to decide the issue or issues in dispute, except that s/he does not have authority to amend, alter, modify, add to or subtract from the provisions of this Agreement.

Id. ¶ 8; Pet. Ex. B, at 28-29. Under Rule 3(a) of the Labor Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (the "AAA Rules"), "[t]he arbitrator shall have the power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the existence, scope or validity of the arbitration agreement." Pet. Ex. A, at 13.

In or about 2014, the Union signed a Memorandum of Agreement with each of the Respondents, that provided in relevant part:

[G]iven changes in federal and state law imposing new obligations on the Employer and exposing Employers to significantly increased level of litigation, it is in the interest of the Union, Employees, and the Employer to develop an expeditious and effective alternative dispute resolution procedure for the resolution of claims arising under such laws. Accordingly, between the execution of this Agreement and December 1, 2014, or as otherwise agreed by the parties, the parties shall meet in good faith to negotiate such an alternative dispute resolution procedure. If the parties are unable to agree to such a procedure in the allotted time, the Employer may submit the dispute to Martin F. Scheinman for final and binding arbitration.

Pet. ¶ 9; Pet. Ex. C, at 6-7.

Finally, in or about 2015, the Union signed a further Memorandum of Agreement (the "2015 MOA") with each of the Respondents, that provided for the resolution of claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, and New York Labor Laws, pursuant to an alternate dispute resolution process. See Pet. ¶ 10; Pet. Ex. D, t 9. In relevant part, the 2015 MOA provided that a new article be added to the CBA, entitled "ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION," which provided in relevant part:

The parties agree a goal of this Agreement is to ensure compliance with all federal, state and local wage hour laws and wage parity statutes. Accordingly, to ensure the uniform administration and interpretation of this Agreement in connection with federal, state and local wage-hour and wage parity statutes, all claims brought by either the Union or Employees, asserting violations of or arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, or New York Labor Law (collectively, the "Covered Statutes"), in any manner, shall be subject exclusively, to the grievance and arbitration procedures described in this Article. The statute of limitations to file a grievance concerning the Covered Statutes shall be consistent with the applicable statutory statute of limitations. All such claims if not resolved in the grievance procedure, including class grievances filed by the Union, or mediation as described below shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration before Martin F. Scheinman, Esq. The Arbitrator shall apply appropriate law and shall award all statutory remedies and penalties, including attorney[’s] fees, consistent with the FLSA and New York Labor Law in rendering decisions regarding disputes arising under this Article.

Pet. ¶ 10; Pet. Ex. D, at 9. The 2015 MOA also required that before parties can proceed to resolve a grievance alleging a violation of a "Covered Statute" through arbitration, it must first be submitted for "mandatory mediation." Pet. ¶ 11; Pet. Ex. D, at 9.³ It also stated that, "[t]he parties agree not to contest court confirmation of an arbitration award rendered under this Article." Pet. ¶ 11; Pet. Ex. D, at 10.

On January 2, 2019, the Union filed a class action grievance against the Respondents on behalf of its home care "members concerning violations of the CBAs regarding wage and hour claims arising under the Covered Statutes." Pet. ¶ 12. Pursuant to the 2015 MOA and CBA, the Union and Respondents proceeded to mediation before Martin S. Scheinman (the "Arbitrator"), which concluded on December 24, 2019 without an agreement having been reached. Id. ¶¶ 14, 16. At the time the Union filed the grievance, certain home care workers, including certain employees who had terminated employment prior to the adoption of the 2015 MOA, had initiated putative class action lawsuits in state and federal court to pursue claims under the "Covered Statutes" directly against their employers. Id. ¶ 13. In cases involving eight former home care workers, courts held that the plaintiffs could not be compelled to arbitrate under the 2015 MOA. Id. ¶ 13. With the consent of the Arbitrator, certain attorneys representing individual home care employees, who were then plaintiffs in pending court cases, also participated in the mediation. Id. ¶ 15.

On December 18,...