Arbitration Award Rightly Upended in Hospital Employee Vacation Case, Third Circuit Says in Precedential Ruling
Judge Thomas Ambro called it "the rare situation where not even our heavy degree of deference to arbitrators can save an arbitration decision and award."
January 02, 2020 at 10:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
In a precedential ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has upheld a lower court's ruling that an arbitrator handling a labor dispute between a union employee and a hospital over vacation time overstepped his authority.
The panel on Monday upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Monongahela Valley Hospital, vacating an arbitration award in favor of United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC.
"We have the rare situation where not even our heavy degree of deference to arbitrators can save an arbitration decision and award," Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote in the opinion's introduction.
As part of the hospital employees' collective bargaining agreement, union employees' requests for vacation time get precedence over nonunion employees' when scheduling conflicts emerge, according to Ambro's opinion. To head off any potential problems, the hospital instituted "blackout" periods where certain weeks were blocked off for vacation.
The dispute in this case stems from the attempts of Carol Konsugar and her working supervisor, a nonbargaining unit employee, to take off at the same time. The hospital denied Konsugar's request in favor of her supervisor. Konsugar subsequent complaint went to arbitration as part of the collective bargaining agreement.
In interpreting §13(B)(6) of the agreement, "the arbitrator said he could not 'conclude that the subsequent reservation of exclusivity in allocating vacations entirely to the hospital completely negates … "so far as possible"' because of his concern that it could then always deny bargaining unit employees their vacation requests," Ambro said. "Accordingly, the arbitrator sustained the grievance, ruling that, 'notwithstanding the hospital's reservation of exclusive rights contained in Section 13[B](6) of the agreement,' the CBA precluded the hospital from using 'blackout' periods and prevented it from 'deny[ing] senior employees in the bargaining unit their desired vacation[] when there is no operating need.'"
Afterward, the hospital filed a complaint in federal court, and a U.S. District Court judge in Western District of Pennsylvania granted the motion for summary judgment on the basis that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. On appeal, the Third Circuit agreed.
"The union asks us to reverse the district court's order and reinstate the arbitration award. We decline to do so because the award in no rational way draws its essence from the CBA, and the arbitrator, in inserting the 'operating need' restriction, exceeded his authority under the CBA by dispensing his own brand of industrial justice," Ambro said.
The union is represented by Anthony P. Resnick of Pittsburgh, who did not respond to a request for comment.
The hospital is represented by Hayes C. Stover of K&L Gates in Pittsburgh.
"As the court stated, this was one of those cases where not even the normal deference given to labor arbitration awards could save an erroneous award," Hayes said in an email. "The Hospital is, of course, pleased that both the district court and the United States Court Of Appeals agreed with its position. The unfortunate aspect of the case is that the Hospital was required to incur legal expenses to ultimately achieve the correct result."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSocial Media Policy for Judges Provides Guidance in a Changing World
3 minute readBank of America's Cash Sweep Program Attracts New Legal Fire in Class Action
3 minute read'Something Really Bad Happened': J&J's Talc Bankruptcy Vote Under Attack
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250