Vrable Iv Inc. Dba Pembroke Place Skilled Nursing v. Seiu Dist. 1199
| Decision Date | 22 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:10–cv–00158. |
| Citation | 784 F.Supp.2d 846 |
| Parties | VRABLE IV, INC. dba Pembroke Place Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Plaintiff,v.SEIU DISTRICT 1199, WV/KY/OH, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Todd F. Palmer, Calfee Halter & Griswold, Cleveland, OH, N. Trevor Alexander, Calfee Halter & Griswold, Columbus, OH, for Plaintiff.Cathrine J. Harshman, Michael John Hunter, Hunter Carnahan Shoub & Byard, Columbus, OH, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Vrable IV, Inc., dba Pembroke Place Skilled Nursing and Rehabilitation Center (“the Center”) filed this action in Franklin County, Ohio Common Pleas Court pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 2711.01 et seq., to vacate an arbitration award issued against the Center in favor of employee-grievant Arjaniece Turnage 1 (“Grievant”). Defendant SEIU District WV/KY/OH (“the Union”) filed a notice of removal of the action to the United States District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. (Def.'s Not. of Removal, doc. # 2.) This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29 U.S.C. § 185.
Before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment: the Union asks this Court to confirm the award; the Center asks this Court to vacate it. The motions are fully briefed and ready for disposition. After careful consideration of the record, this Court GRANTS the Union's motion and DENIES the Center's motion.
The Center, a skilled nursing facility, and the Union, representative of its union employees, are parties to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) which was effective from August 13, 2007 to August 31, 2009. Under the terms of the CBA, the Center retains the right to “hire, promote, demote, discipline, discharge, transfer, layoff and recall” employees. ( Id.) The CBA permits arbitration of grievances over “discharge or disciplinary suspension” so long as certain time restraints for filing and processing are followed. ( Id., page 18.) Once the parties agree to an arbitrator—under the process outlined in the CBA—the date and time of an arbitration hearing is set.
Under the CBA, the Arbitrator's powers are limited as follows:
[Article 17] Section 9: The Arbitrator's powers shall be limited to the application and interpretation of the Agreement as it is written. He shall at all times be governed wholly by the terms of the Agreement and he shall have no power or authority to amend, alter or modify the Agreement in any respect. The Arbitrator's decision shall be final and binding upon the Union, the Center and employees.
( Id.)
The following undisputed facts are contained within the Arbitrator's “Decision and Award” (doc. # 22–4, “the Award”), as well as the briefs of the parties (doc. 22, 24, 30, and 31). Grievant is a State–Tested Nursing Assistant (“STNA”) who had been employed by the Center for almost three years prior to her termination. From 7:00 pm. April 15, 2009 through 7:00 a.m. April 16, Grievant was assigned to the East Wing of the Center's rehabilitation floor. By the morning of April 16, there were several complaints by residents against her, and the Center conducted an investigation. As the result of what the Arbitrator determined to be a “sufficient investigation” (the Award, page 37), the Center terminated Grievant and another STNA for “willful and wanton” abuse of two residents ( id., page 38, referring to the termination form discharging Grievant 2). One supervisor was administratively suspended but returned to work with no discipline, and another was terminated for “violation of company policy,” including absence from the floor and not making rounds. (The Award, pages 37–38.) The Union filed a grievance with respect to Grievant's discharge.
Following a hearing, the Arbitrator determined that the Center, after conducting a sufficient investigation, did not establish “just cause” for Grievant's termination. Based on the evidence before him, the Arbitrator found that the Center's “termination form” stated that Grievant was discharged for “willful and wanton abuse” of Residents A and Z. (The Award, pages 38–39.) After reviewing the relevant Ohio and federal statutes, he found that “abuse” is defined as “the willful infliction of injury, unreasonable confinement, intimidation or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain or mental anguish.” ( Id., page 5.) The Arbitrator then focused his inquiry to whether the Center was justified in terminating Grievant for the “willful and wanton abuse” of Residents A and Z.3 With regard to Resident Z, who complained that Grievant told him not to use his call button again, the Arbitrator weighed the evidence and found Grievant's testimony to be more convincing than the other evidence offered. In addition, he found that at most there was a “mis-communication” between Resident Z and Grievant and an “admonishment” to Resident Z from Grievant “not to call again.” ( Id., page 41) In sum, the Center “did not clearly convince the Arbitrator that Grievant was verbally abusive to Resident Z[.]” ( Id., page 42.)
Resident A had complained that Grievant and another STNA deprived her of oxygen when they disconnected Resident A from her in-room tank but did not hook her up to a portable oxygen tank when transporting her down the hall for a shower. The Arbitrator, while finding the facts alleged to be true, found that Grievant's actions were not “willful” abuse. Instead, he found that Grievant, who did not know how to use the portable tank, appeared to have been “certain” that she was proceeding correctly by not using oxygen at all, as evidenced by her alerting the supervisor when she had returned with Resident A so the supervisor could reconnect the oxygen. ( Id., page 45.) Important, too, to the Arbitrator's decision was his determination that the Center's management appeared to be aware of Grievant's actions and did nothing to correct them at the time. Two supervisors, who witnessed at least some of this conduct, stated that “nothing appeared to be amiss.” ( Id., page 43.) “Neither acted to prevent any apparent abuse which is their responsibility as much or more than it is for everyone at the Center.” ( Id.)
In sum, the Arbitrator found that Grievant's actions did not constitute “willful abuse,” and, therefore, the Center's termination was not justified. In addition, the Arbitrator found that Grievant's actions, while “unfortunate,” occurred “[u]nder the noses of two supervisors” and that Grievant should not be made a “scapegoat[ ].” ( Id., page 47.) The Arbitrator ordered that Grievant be reinstated to her former position with back pay, less any unemployment compensation and interim earnings. ( Id., page 48.)
The Union, in response to the Center's subsequent refusal to reinstate Grievant, filed its action to enforce the decision in Franklin County Common Pleas Court. As noted, supra, that action has been removed to this Court. The Union asks for the Court to confirm the award, and the Center asks this Court to vacate it.
The role of the federal courts in enforcing arbitration awards is limited. “The refusal of courts to review the merits of an arbitration award is the proper approach to arbitration under collective bargaining agreements” because, otherwise, public policy in favor of settling labor disputes by arbitration “would be undermined if courts had the final say on the merits of the awards.” United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). The Enterprise Court cautioned against a court's substituting its own interpretation of the contract for that of the arbitrators. Id. at 599, 80 S.Ct. 1358. Where an arbitrator declines to be confined to “interpretation and application” and instead “dispense[s] his own brand of industrial justice,” a court could refuse to enforce an award. Id. An arbitrator's award is legitimate “so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement.” Id. at 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358.
In United Paperworkers Int'l Union, AFL–CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 31, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987), the Court looked again at when a federal court may refuse to enforce an arbitration award rendered under a collective bargaining agreement. Clarifying the line between an award that “draws its essence” from the contract and one that reflects the arbitrator's own brand of “industrial justice,” the Misco Court noted as follows: “[A]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision.” Id. at 38, 108 S.Ct. 364. More recently, in Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504, 509, 121 S.Ct. 1724, 149 L.Ed.2d 740 (2001), the Court went further: when “an arbitrator resolves disputes regarding the application of a contract, and no dishonesty is alleged, the arbitrator's ‘improvident, even silly, factfinding’ does not provide a basis for a reviewing court to refuse to enforce the award.” Id. at 509, 121 S.Ct. 1724 (quoting Misco, 484 U.S. at 39, 108 S.Ct. 364).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christus St. Vincent Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Dist. 1199NM
...Local Union Nos. 12, 111, 113, 969 v. Prof'l Hole Drilling, Inc., 574 F.2d 497, 503 (10th Cir. 1978) ; Vrable IV, Inc. v. SEIU District 1199, 784 F.Supp.2d 846 (S.D. Ohio 2011) ). The Hospital Union contends that Hill appropriately applied the "seven tests of just cause" standard. Petition ......
-
Trehel Corp. v. W.S. Agee Grading Contractor, Inc.
...of arbitration decision); Sun Ship, Inc. v. Matson Navigation Co., 785 F.2d 59, 63 (3d Cir.1986); Vrable IV, Inc. v. SEIU Dist. 1199, WV/KY/OH, 784 F. Supp. 2d 846, 854 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (awarding prejudgment interest from date of arbitrator's decision, at rate provided for under state law);......
-
United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union AFL-CIO-CLC v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp., 11-15081
...judgment. See, e.g., Quaker Oats Co. v. Int'l Chemical Workers Union, 1993 WL47199, *3 (6th Cir. 1993); Vrable IV, Inc. v. SEIU Dist. 1199, 784 F.Supp.2d 846, 854 (S.D. Ohio 2011); Millcraft-SMS Services, LLC v. United Steel Workers of America, 346 F.Supp.2d 1176, 1186-87 (N.D. Ala. 2004). ......
-
Auffarth v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
...554 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997); here, instead, Nationwide offered evidence, but it was incorrect. See also Vrable IV, Inc. v. SEIU Dist. 1188, 784 F. Supp. 2d 846, 854 n.4 (S.D. Ohio 2011) ("As the prevailing party . . . has neglected to provide the correct calculation, the Court will apply the [......