Message
×
loading..

Utility Systems Inc v. International Union of Operat ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                               NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    _____________
    No. 21-1821
    _____________
    UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC.
    v.
    INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
    LOCAL 825 AFL-CIO
    (D. NJ No. 2-20-cv-14369)
    INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS
    LOCAL 825 AFL-CIO
    v.
    UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC.
    (D. NJ No. 2-20-cv-14534)
    Utility Systems, Inc.,
    Appellant
    ______________
    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
    (D.C. Nos. 2-20-cv-14369 & 2-20-cv-14534)
    District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton
    ______________
    Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
    on April 1, 2022
    ______________
    Before: RESTREPO, ROTH, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges
    (Filed: July 26, 2022)
    ______________
    OPINION *
    ______________
    RESTREPO, Circuit Judge.
    This appeal is about the arbitration of a labor dispute between Appellant Utility
    Systems (“Utility”) and Appellee International Union of Operating Engineers Local 825,
    AFL-CIO (“Local 825”). The arbitrator entered an award in favor of Local 825. Utility
    moved the District Court to vacate the award, contending that the arbitrator committed
    misconduct by refusing to grant its request to reopen the arbitration—months after Utility
    rested its case—for additional witness testimony. The District Court found no basis to
    conclude that the arbitrator committed misconduct and confirmed the arbitration award.
    We will affirm.
    I. 1
    Utility, a construction contractor, and Local 825, a labor union, are parties to a
    collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The CBA, among other things, requires
    Utility to subcontract work only to those subcontractors who agree to follow certain
    hiring procedures. Utility, however, subcontracted work for four projects to contractors
    that did not follow the required procedures. Local 825 filed grievances for the violations,
    which proceeded to arbitration pursuant to the CBA.
    *
    This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
    constitute binding precedent.
    1
    As we write for the benefit of the parties, we set out only the facts necessary for the
    discussion that follows.
    2
    At arbitration, Utility contended that its CBA violations were excused by an
    unwritten “work sharing agreement” that predated the CBA by decades. App. 2. But the
    testimony of Utility’s witnesses at the arbitration undercut its position. Utility witnesses
    James Stevens and James Scarpone could not identify a work sharing agreement
    involving it. And Utility’s principals—Benedita Barros and Frank Pinho—did not
    produce any writing between the parties supporting the existence of the work sharing
    agreement.
    Months after Utility rested its case and the arbitration hearings concluded, but
    before the arbitration decision, Utility asked the arbitrator to reopen the hearings to
    permit it to recall Barros and Pinho and to call additional, then-unidentified
    representatives of Local 825 for the purpose of rebutting the testimony of Scarpone and
    Stevens—who, as noted, were Utility’s own witnesses. Local 825 opposed reopening the
    arbitration. The arbitrator denied Utility’s request, reasoning that “[b]oth parties had
    ample opportunity to present their cases-in-chief” and that reopening the hearings would
    be “anathema to the arbitration process.” App. 3 (quoting Arb. Op. at 3).
    Subsequently, the arbitrator issued a decision concluding that no binding work
    sharing agreement existed, finding that Utility had violated the CBA, and awarding
    $363,613.49 in damages to Local 825.
    Utility then moved to vacate the arbitration award in the United States District
    Court for the District of New Jersey, arguing that the arbitrator’s refusal to reopen the
    proceedings for additional witness testimony was misconduct that deprived Utility of a
    fair and complete hearing.
    3
    The District Court noted that Utility’s request to reopen the arbitration was not due
    to newly discovered (or even overlooked) evidence. Indeed, the additional testimony
    Utility wanted to present was to rebut the testimony of its own two witnesses, and not to
    distinguish or counter any testimony put on by Local 825. The District Court further
    observed that if Utility wanted to rebut or clarify the testimony of its witnesses, it could
    have done so before it closed its case. Accordingly, the District Court found no basis to
    conclude that the arbitrator committed misconduct or that Utility was deprived of a fair
    hearing. It then denied Utility’s motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted Local
    825’s cross-motion to confirm it. This appeal followed. 2
    II.
    “When reviewing a district court’s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration
    award, we review its legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error.”
    Whitehead v. Pullman Grp., LLC, 
    811 F.3d 116
    , 119 n.23 (3d Cir. 2016). We may affirm
    on any grounds supported by the record. Hassen v. Gov’t of V.I., 
    861 F.3d 108
    , 114 (3d
    Cir. 2017).
    There is a strong presumption under the Federal Arbitration Act in favor of
    enforcing arbitration awards. E.g., Brentwood Med. Assocs. v. United Mine Workers of
    Am., 
    396 F.3d 237
    , 241 (3d Cir. 2005). We review them under an “extremely deferential
    standard,” the application of which “is generally to affirm easily the arbitration award.”
    Dluhos v. Strasberg, 
    321 F.3d 365
    , 370 (3d Cir. 2003).
    2
    The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1331
    . We have jurisdiction
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
     and 
    9 U.S.C. § 16
    (a).
    4
    Our review is guided by a district court’s “very limited role in reviewing the
    decision of an arbitrator appointed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.” Citgo
    Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Paper, Allied-Indus., Chem. & Energy Workers Int’l Union Loc. No.
    2-991, 
    385 F.3d 809
    , 815 (3d Cir. 2004). Arbitrators have wide latitude in how they
    conduct proceedings. See Office & Prof’l Emps. Int’l Union, Local No. 471 v.
    Brownsville Gen. Hosp., 
    186 F.3d 326
    , 334–35 (3d Cir. 1999).
    A court may vacate an arbitration award in certain circumstances, however,
    including “where the arbitrators were guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the
    hearing, upon sufficient cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and
    material to the controversy, or of any other misbehavior by which the rights of any party
    have been prejudiced[.]” 
    9 U.S.C. § 10
    (a)(3). Accordingly, it is “axiomatic that a district
    court may vacate an award if a party to an arbitration proceeding has not been given
    notice and opportunity to present arguments and evidence on the merits of the dispute.”
    Teamsters Local 312 v. Matlack, Inc., 
    118 F.3d 985
    , 995 (3d Cir. 1997) (citations
    omitted). “The statute cannot be read, however, to intend that every failure to receive
    relevant evidence constitutes misconduct which will require the vacation of an
    arbitrator’s award.” Newark Stereotypers’ Union No. 18 v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.,
    
    397 F.2d 594
    , 599 (3d Cir. 1968). Rather, “misconduct” under Section 10(a)(3) is
    conduct “which so affects the rights of a party that it may be said that [the party] was
    deprived of a fair hearing.” 
    Id.
    5
    III.
    Utility contends that the District Court erred in refusing to vacate the arbitration
    award, arguing that the arbitrator’s decision not to reopen the proceedings was
    misconduct that deprived Utility of a fair opportunity to present all relevant information
    and testimony. We disagree.
    As the District Court noted, the arbitrator gave Utility ample opportunity to
    present witnesses and arguments. Utility voluntarily rested its case. Utility suggests that
    it only rested its case because it anticipated that the matter would settle prior to the
    arbitrator issuing a decision, but that was Utility’s prerogative. Utility’s request to
    reopen the record was not based on newly discovered—or even overlooked evidence.
    Rather, Utility wanted to rebut certain testimony from its own witnesses—largely by
    allowing its principals (Barros and Pinho) a chance to reframe their earlier testimony.
    The decisions finding arbitrator misconduct that Utility cites are easily distinguishable,
    and it cites no case finding misconduct based on an arbitrator’s refusal to reopen
    proceedings months after the requesting party rested its case. Regardless, we discern no
    misconduct here. We agree with the District Court that the arbitrator’s refusal to reopen
    the proceedings to allow the proposed testimony—months after Utility rested its case—
    did not deprive it of a fair hearing.
    IV.
    For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
    6