main image

Archive for the ‘LMRA Section 301’ Category

Can a Court under Section 10(a)(4) Overturn an Award Because it was Based on a Clear Mistake of Historical Fact or a Conceded Nonfact? 

October 7th, 2024 Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Irrational, Award Vacated, Awards, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Labor Arbitration, LMRA Section 301, Petition to Vacate Award, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacate Award | Public Policy, Vacatur, Vacatur for Conceded Nonfact or Clear Mistake of Historical Fact 3 Comments »

nonfact | clear historical factCan a court vacate an award because it was based on a clear mistake of historical fact or on a conceded nonfact? Some might consider asking that question to be akin to using fighting words, but it is one that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit may ultimately answer if an appeal of the UPHealth Holdings, Inc. v. Glocal Healthcare Sys. PVT, No. 24-cv-3778, slip op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2024) is taken.

In vacating in part the award in that case the UpHealth district court took a rather bold step, albeit one that has support in two circuit court labor arbitration cases (decided in 1974 and 1985), Electronics Corp. of Am. v. International Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers, 492 F.2d 1255 (1st Cir. 1974); National Post Office, Mailhandlers, Watchmen, Messengers & Grp. Leaders Div, Laborers Int’l Union of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. United States Postal Serv., 751 F.2d 834, 843 (6th Cir. 1985) (Stewart, Associate Justice (ret.), sitting by designation), and at least one district court case, decided under the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”) in 2002, Mollison-Turner v. Lynch Auto Grp., No. 01 6340, 2002 WL 1046704, at *3 (N.D. Ill. May 23, 2002). It vacated in part an award because the Court determined the arbitrators strongly relied on a conceded nonfact. Whether UpHealth will withstand appellate review is unclear at this juncture, but at least for the time being, it provides award challengers with some additional support for vacating a very narrow class of questionable but rare awards that feature the kind of unusual circumstances present in UpHealth, Electronics Corp., National Post Office, and Mollison-Turner. Each of these cases presented a situation where an award was based on a clear mistake of historical fact, a conceded nonfact, or both.

This post reviews what transpired in UpHealth. In one or more later posts we shall subject the Court’s decision to analytical scrutiny and consider whether, and if so, to what extent, the notion that an award can be vacated based on a mistake of historical fact or a conceded nonfact will likely gain traction in future cases. We may also consider whether, and if so, to what extent, vacatur on that ground comports with Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) principles, and discuss in more detail Electronics Corp., National Post Office, and Mollison-Turner. 

Legal Background: Outcome Review of Arbitration Awards

Manifest Disregard of the Agreement and Manifest Disregard of the Law

Under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and in labor arbitration cases, courts can vacate Continue Reading »

D.C. Circuit Says it has No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Competing Claims to Confirm or Vacate Award Made Pursuant to Collective Bargaining Agreement   

August 21st, 2024 Application to Confirm, Application to Vacate, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Awards, Confirmation of Awards, Federal Courts, Federal Question, Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Labor Arbitration, Labor Law, LMRA Section 301, LMRA Section 301(a), Post-Award Federal Arbitration Act Litigation, Practice and Procedure, Rights and Obligations of Nonsignatories, United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Comments Off on D.C. Circuit Says it has No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction over Competing Claims to Confirm or Vacate Award Made Pursuant to Collective Bargaining Agreement   

Subject-Matter JurisdictionWe’ve made over the last several months months a point of discussing arbitration-enforcement litigation cases addressing the subject-matter jurisdiction because—particularly in the context of the Federal Arbitration Act (the “FAA”)—it is not only complex but frequently  counterintuitive. (See here, here, and here.) This case— International Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Consol Energy Inc., ___ F.4d ___, No. 22-7110, slip op. (D.C. Cir. August 9, 2024)—caught our eye because the Court held that that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff on one ground and over the defendants’ counterclaim on an independent ground, Article III standing.

Background

The United Mine Workers of America (the “Union”) and coal mining companies (the “Mining Companies”), all subsidiaries of  Consol Energy, Inc. (“Consol”), signed a collective bargaining agreement (the “CBA”)  but Consol did not. The CBA provided for arbitration of grievances. It also provided to Union members lifetime health care benefits. The Union claims that the Mining Companies could not reduce benefits unilaterally, even if a member no longer mined coal.

For its part Consol was the Mining Companies’ health care administrator. Prior to the CBA’s expiration date, Consol informed the Mining Companies’ mining employees that Consol would consider modifying miner benefits once the CBA expired.

That prompted a retired miner to file a grievance against Consol, an arbitration followed, and with the support of the Union, the miner obtained an award in his favor. The arbitrators determined they had jurisdiction over Consol, a nonsignatory to the CBA, which by the time the arbitration took place, had expired. They also determined that the proposed benefit modifications would violate the CBA and made an award that prohibited Consol from making them.

The Union brought against Consol and the Mining Companies an action in district court to confirm the award, invoking Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) Section 301(a)’s grant of subject-matter jurisdiction over actions “for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization.” 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Consul and the Mining Companies brought a separate action to vacate the award, and the district court consolidated the two cases.

Prior to the district court reaching its decision Consol was split into two successor entities and otherwise ceased to exist. One of the two was joined but the district court dismissed it because its business did not concern coal mining. The other successor entity (the parent of the Mining Companies) was never made a party. The Mining Companies remained parties to the consolidated action.

The district court dismissed on standing grounds the Union’s confirmation action. It found the Union suffered no injury because there was no CBA violation. While Consul proposed to modify benefits it never did so. But the district court nevertheless determined on the merits that there was no basis for vacating the award, either. An appeal by both parties followed.

Subject-Matter Jurisdiction: The D.C. Circuit’s Decision

The D.C. Court of Appeals determined that “[n]o party in this appeal has shown that federal courts have jurisdiction over its claim.” United Mine Workers, slip op. at 8. It therefore affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Union’s claim, vacated the district court’s determination on the merits of the vacatur counterclaim, and remanded the counterclaim with instructions to dismiss it on standing grounds. Id.

The District Court had No Subject-Matter Jurisdiction to Confirm the Award

Continue Reading »

Manifest Disregard of the Agreement: Third Circuit Says Arbitrator Rewrote the 10-Day Time Limit For Grievance Filing and Affirms District Court Judgment Vacating Award

July 19th, 2024 Application to Vacate, Arbitration as a Matter of Consent, Arbitration Law, Arbitration Practice and Procedure, Authority of Arbitrators, Award Fails to Draw Essence from the Agreement, Award Irrational, Award Vacated, Awards, Challenging Arbitration Awards, Enforcing Arbitration Agreements, Exceeding Powers, FAA Chapter 1, FAA Section 10, Federal Arbitration Act Enforcement Litigation Procedure, Federal Arbitration Act Section 10, First Principle - Consent not Coercion, Grounds for Vacatur, Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, Labor Arbitration, LMRA Section 301, Manifest Disregard of the Agreement, Petition to Vacate Award, Practice and Procedure, Section 10, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Vacate, Vacate Award | 10(a)(4), Vacate Award | Exceeding Powers, Vacate Award | Excess of Powers, Vacatur 1 Comment »

disregard of the agreementAn arbitration award may be vacated for “manifest disregard of the agreement” if the award does not draw its essence from the contract and instead reflects the arbitrator’s own notions of economic or industrial justice. (See, e.g., here, here,  here,  here.)  Such an award exceeds the arbitrator’s powers within the meaning of Section 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4) and federal common law in Labor Management Relations Act Section 301 cases (which tracks Section 10(a)(4)).

Arbitration awards do not qualify for vacatur under this manifest disregard of the agreement standard unless the arbitrator did not even arguably interpret the agreement. And if you have any doubts about how much extensive leeway arbitrators have to “arguably interpret” contracts, go back and review the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in  Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564, 566-70 (2013).

The margins for a reasonable argument for manifest disregard of the agreement vacatur are slim, for once the arbitrator offers—or the award is otherwise susceptible to—an even barely plausible interpretation supporting the arbitrator’s award, then it’s game over, even if the barely plausible interpretation is one a court would almost certainly not adopt as its own.

But in StoneMor, Inc. v. The Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters, Local 469, ___ F.4d ___, No. 23-1489, slip op. (3d Cir. July 10, 2024), the Third Circuit reminds everyone that, while it is “‘a steep climb to vacate an . . . award[,]’” slip op. at 6 (quoting France v. Bernstein, 43 F.4th 210, 219 (3d Cir. 2022)), the Court’s “review is ‘not toothless,’ and [it] will reverse if the arbitrator ‘rewrites the contract[.]’” Slip op. at 6 (quoting Independent Lab’y Employees’ Union, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Research & Engineering Co., 11 F.4th 210, 219 (3d Cir. 2021)). (You can read our France v. Bernstein post here.)

The award before the Court in StoneMor, was the product of an arbitrator who “did just that[,]” and the Court affirmed the district court’s judgment vacating that award—an award which resulted from manifest disregard of the agreement. Slip op. at 6 & 3. Because the Court was able to conclude that the award was not based on—and did not otherwise reflect—an even barely colorable interpretation of the contract, vacatur was warranted. Continue Reading »