Time Warner Cable of N.Y.C. LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers
| Decision Date | 16 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | 14–CV–2437,Related action 15–CV–700 |
| Citation | 170 F.Supp.3d 392 |
| Parties | Time Warner Cable of New York City LLC, Plaintiff v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3, and Derek Jordan, Individually and in His Capacity as Business Agent of Local 3, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Kenneth Alan Margolis, Daniel Kirschbaum, Kauff McGuire & Margolis LLP, 950 Third Avenue, 15th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10022–2075, 212–644–1010, Email: margolis@kmm.com, Email: kirschbaum@kmm.com, for Plaintiff Time Warner Cable of New York City LLC
John H. Byington, III, Marty Gerard Glennon, Robert T. McGovern, Archer, Byington, Glennon & Levine, LLP, One Huntington Quadrangle, Suite 4C10, P.O. Box 9064, Melville, N.Y. 11747, 631 249–6565, Email: jbyington @abgllaw.com, Email: mglennon@abgllaw.com, Email: rmcgovern@abgllaw.com, for Defendants International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3; Derek Jordan
Dawn Goldstein, Dalford D. Owens, National Labor Relations Board Contempt, Compliance, & Special Litigation Branch, Washington, DC 20570, 202–273–2936, Email: dawn.goldstein@nlrb.gov, Email: dean.owens@nlrb.gov, Sarah Posner, National Labor Relations Board 1015 Half Street Southeast, Fourth Floor Washington, DC 20003, 202–273–2904, Email: sarah.posner@nlrb.gov, for Intervenor Defendant National Labor Relations Board
JACK B. WEINSTEIN
, Senior United States District Judge:
Table of Contents
II. Factual Background and Procedural History...400
III. Summary Judgment Standard of Review...410
IV. Law...410
V. Application of Law to Facts...415
VI. Final Decision of Arbitrator...418
I. Introduction
Posed is this question: Is a specific arbitration agreement—to determine whether a precise work stoppage was justified—valid and enforceable even if the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) determined that a general collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with relevant no-strike and general arbitration clauses was never operative. The answer in the present case: The parties' independent narrow agreement to arbitrate a particular dispute about a particular work stoppage is enforceable.
This action arises out of a discrete dispute concerning whether defendant, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO, Local No. 3 (“Local 3”), (1) engaged in an unlawful work stoppage on April 2, 2014 of about one hour in duration, and, if so, (2) what compensation plaintiff, Time Warner Cable of New York City, LLC, (“TWC”), was entitled to as damages.
Plaintiff TWC initiated a claim against Local 3 on April 16, 2014 in this district court for the Eastern District of New York (“court”). It sought an order enjoining defendants from future strikes as well as a judgment for damages. See Am. Compl., 14–CV–2437, Aug. 27, 2014, ECF No. 35 (“Am. Compl.”).
Almost simultaneously, the parties expressly agreed, in a narrow free-standing arbitration agreement, to resolve their dispute through binding arbitration. The instant case was stayed pending completion of the arbitration.
The parties engaged in the arbitration without objection. On November 30, 2015, American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) arbitrator Daniel F. Brent (“arbitrator”) issued a final award for TWC of $19,297.96. The arbitrator determined that, by engaging in a work stoppage on April 2, 2014, Local 3 had violated the no-strike provision contained in a CBA. The NLRB had found this CBA had never been adopted by Local 3. The arbitrator directed Local 3 to desist from similar conduct in the future, and to pay damages to TWC.
On January 20, 2016, TWC filed a motion to confirm the final arbitration award.
See Not. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Jan. 20, 2016, ECF No. 63. Local 3 opposed.
While the dispute between Local 3 and TWC was before this court and also before an arbitrator, the NLRB addressed two related unfair labor practice claims: one brought by TWC and one by the union on behalf of employees of TWC who were members of Local 3.
TWC's NLRB claim alleged that Local 3 had engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to sign the CBA pursuant to which the parties had been operating since April 2013. See Decl. of Kevin. M. Smith in Supp. of Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Jan. 20, 2016, ECF No. 66 (“Smith Decl.”), at ¶ 21; see also infra Part II.D. The NLRB administrative law judge (“ALJ”) found that the parties had “plausible but different understandings” as to what was included in the CBA. Decl. of Marty Glennon in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J., Feb. 12, 2016, ECF No. 76 (“Glennon Decl.”), Ex. A, NLRB Decision & Order, 363 NLRB No. 30
, Oct. 29, 2015, ECF No. 76–1 (“Ex.A”), at 18. He concluded that “there was no meeting of the minds and no [CBA] contract.” Id. The NLRB subsequently affirmed the ALJ's decision. Id. ; see also infra Part II.N and Part II.Q.
Local 3's NLRB charge claimed that TWC engaged in unfair labor practices by, among other things, suspending employees who engaged in the April 2, 2014 event. See NLRB Mem. in Supp. of Defs.' Cross Mot. for Summ. J., Feb. 16, 2016, ECF No. 83 (“NLRB Mem.”), at 4 and Ex. 2, Compl. & Not. of Hr'g, NLRB Case No. 2–CA–126860, Jan. 29, 2016, ECF No. 83–2 (“Ex.2”); Hr'g Tr., Mar. 1, 2016, at 23:6–18. At first the NLRB dismissed Local 3's charge, because the CBA pursuant to which the parties had apparently been operating included a no-strike provision. See Decl. of Daniel S. Kirschbaum in Opp'n to Defs.' Cross Mot. for Summ. J., Feb. 19, 2016, ECF No. 93 (“Kirschbaum Decl.”), Ex. A, NLRB Decision to Dismiss Case No. 2–CA–126860, Jan. 5, 2015. But, it revoked its dismissal following the ALJ's determination, in the earlier case brought by TWC, that the parties had not agreed on all terms of the CBA. This case is currently pending before the NLRB. See NLRB Mem., at 4 and Ex. 2; Hr'g Tr., Mar. 1, 2016, at 23:6–18.
The arbitrator assumed, for the purposes of the arbitration, that an agreement not to strike had been embodied in the CBA which had been entered into between Local 3 and TWC.
The assumptions of the arbitrator and the NLRB are clearly inconsistent. The instant memorandum and order rests on the position that the arbitrator was not deprived of jurisdiction by the NLRB decision. See Hr'g Tr., Mar. 1, 2016, at 24:25–25:4, 25:17–26:3, 30:13–25, 31:19–22, 43:18–23.
In deciding enforceability of the arbitration award, the specific arbitration agreement, and not the general arbitration clause in the CBA, controls. The specific arbitration agreement entered into by TWC and Local 3 on July 24, 2014 is valid and enforceable. The NLRB's current independent proceedings concerning the rights of different parties—some four Local 3 members and TWC—does not control the arbitrator's decision in the specific arbitration Local 3 and TWC agreed to.
Plaintiff TWC seeks confirmation of the specific arbitration award. It argues that: (1) the arbitrator had the authority to decide the dispute pursuant to the CBA as well as the parties' subsequent independent agreement to arbitrate; (2) Local 3 waived any objections to the arbitrator's jurisdiction by participating in the arbitration; and (3) the no-strike and arbitration provisions included in the CBA remain valid despite the determination by the NLRB that there was no “meeting of the minds.” See Pl.'s Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. for Summ. J. Confirming Arbitrator's Final Award, Jan. 20, 2016, ECF No. 65 (“Pl.'s Mem.”).
Defendant Local 3 filed a cross-motion for a summary judgment declaring the arbitrator's final award invalid. See Not. of Defs.' Cross–Mot. for Summ. J., Feb. 12, 2016, ECF No. 73. It contends that the award is unenforceable as against public policy because it conflicts with the NLRB decision finding that there was “no contract” between the parties. See Defs.' Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. to Confirm and in Supp. of Defs.' Cross–Mot. to Vacate the Final Arbitration Award, ECF No. 78 ( ). According to Local 3, the NLRB's decision invalidates the CBA, including its arbitration and no-strike provisions. Local 3 seeks to vacate the award and to dismiss plaintiff's complaint with prejudice. See id.
The NLRB intervened in the present court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goulds Pumps (IPG), LLC v. United Steel Workers Local Union No. 3298
...Union Loc. 812 Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters , 242 F.3d 52, 54 (2d Cir. 2001) ; see also Time Warner Cable of New York City LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers , 170 F. Supp. 3d 392, 412 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The LMRA, rather than the Federal Arbitration Act (‘FAA’) governs actions involving contracts......
-
LGC Holdings, Inc. v. Julius Klein Diamonds, LLC
...1–2). But Ruth Bronner does not identify a non-hearsay basis for her alleged knowledge. See Time Warner Cable of N.Y. City LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers , 170 F.Supp.3d 392, 410 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (requiring "admissible evidence" in deciding a motion to confirm an arbitral award). And, in......
-
Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL–CIO, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 17–CV–5357
...Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications Inc., 277 F.Supp.3d 356, 357–58 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) ; Time Warner Cable of New York City LLC v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 170 F.Supp.3d 392, 398 (E.D.N.Y. 2016), judgment entered, No. 14-CV-2437, 2016 WL 1317402 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016), aff'd sub nom. T......
-
Shasha v. Malkin
...in arbitration by, inter alia, arguing their case before an arbitrator); Time Warner Cable of New York City LLC v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 170 F. Supp. 3d 392, 411 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("A party's participation in the arbitration may waive rights or otherwise prevent it ......