Opinion
Civil Action No. CCB-07-2433.
July 8, 2008
MEMORANDUM
Defendant ARAMARK Healthcare Support Services, LLC ("ARAMARK") and plaintiff American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 67, Local 2751 (the "Union") have filed motions for summary judgment over the plain meaning of the arbitration award issued in In re AFSCME Council 67, Local 2751, Arb. Case No. AAA 16 300 00081 06 (Dec. 18, 2006) (the "Award"). A suit to enforce the arbitral Award was brought by the Union, and both parties agreed to bifurcate the matter by first considering ARAMARK's liability. The issues in this case have been fully briefed and no hearing is necessary. Because the meaning of the Award is ambiguous, the matter will be remanded to the Arbitrator.
BACKGROUND
The factual underpinning of this lawsuit centers around a Collective Bargaining Agreement (the "CBA") between ARAMARK and the Union. ARAMARK provides housekeeping services at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore, Maryland, and employs members of the Union to perform these services. Allegedly facing increasing problems with employee absenteeism, ARAMARK issued new work rules to strengthen available disciplinary measures. The Union challenged the new revised rules, which went into effect January 15, 2006, on the grounds that ARAMARK had failed to adhere to certain procedures established by the CBA before a new work rule could be implemented. More specifically, the Union alleged that ARAMARK had failed to discuss the new work rules with Union representatives prior to posting and implementing the proposed revisions. Pursuant to the CBA's grievance mechanism, the dispute was eventually submitted to arbitration.
On December 18, 2006, an arbitral Award was issued in the Union's favor, finding that ARAMARK had violated Article 21 of the CBA by "failing to discuss proposed work rule revisions before posting and implementing the revisions." As a remedy, the Award ordered that:
The Employer shall rescind the revised work rules implemented on January 15, 2006, and shall meet with the Union to discuss the proposed rules and their impact on the employees and on the employees' rights under the CBA . . . The Employer shall also rescind all disciplinary actions that have been taken on the basis of the revised work rules. The Employer shall reinstate and restore seniority to any employees who have been suspended or terminated on the basis of the revised rules and shall make them whole for lost pay and benefits.
The Employer may, should it so choose, re-post and re-implement work rule revisions after full and meaningful discussion of the revisions with the Union and the Union may exercise its right to grieve any of the revisions should it so choose.
(Pl.'s Cross Mem. at Ex.1, the Award at 22.) Following the issuance of the Award, counsel for the Union attempted to contact counsel for ARAMARK in order to discuss implementation of the Award. (Pl.'s Cross Mem. at Ex. 3A.) When no response was received, a follow-up letter was sent to ARAMARK requesting an inventory of all disciplinary actions taken under the January 15, 2006 revised work rules. (Id. at Ex. 3B.) After again not receiving a response, counsel for the Union wrote to the Arbitrator, sending a copy of the letter to ARAMARK's counsel, detailing ARAMARK's lack of responsiveness. (Id. at Ex. 3C.) The Arbitrator responded that ARAMARK should comply with the Award, or submit any questions it had concerning proper compliance or implementation. (Id. at Ex. 3D.) On March 12, 2007, ARAMARK advised both the Union and the Arbitrator that "the Company has complied/or will comply with your [the Arbitrator's] decision with respect to employees who would have been impacted by the implementation of the revised work rules . . . [and that] the Company ha[d] reverted to the pre-existing work rules. . . ." (Id. at Ex. 3E.) The Union responded by requesting detailed information concerning ARAMARK's compliance, (id. at Ex. 3G,) and the Arbitrator agreed to extend her jurisdiction "for a period of 30 days after receipt" of the compliance information requested by the Union. (Id. at Ex. 3H (emphasis added).) The Arbitrator noted, however, that in the event that ARAMARK refused to comply with the Award enforcement would have to be sought in court. (Id.)
It is not entirely clear from the briefs whether the Union or ARAMARK ever attempted to bring ARAMARK's interpretation of the Award before the Arbitrator under the 30-day extension of jurisdiction before filing this enforcement claim. Because both parties were offering different interpretations of the Award, and the Arbitrator was in the best position to clarify any ambiguities, this course of action would have been the most practical and appropriate. This finding lends support to the court's order of remand.
On August 27, 2007, ARAMARK informed the Union that in order to implement the Award, the revised rules would be rescinded, but the old work rules previously in effect would be used retroactively to determine which employees were actually affected by the revised rules. In other words, it is ARAMARK's position that those employees who would have been terminated, suspended, or otherwise disciplined under the old rules are not subject to the Award's remedial measures. (Def.'s Mem. at Ex. A, Bennett Aff. at ¶ 8.) If the Award is interpreted otherwise, ARAMARK argues, the unreasonable result would be that no work rules at all governing excessive absenteeism would have been in force for approximately a year while the revised work rules ostensibly were in effect.
The Union counters that the clear and unambiguous language of the Award requires ARAMARK to rescind all disciplinary actions taken during the months the new work rules were in effect. According to the Union, the fact that there would be a work rule "void" for the period the revised work rules were in effect is simply a product of ARAMARK's failure to comply with the CBA. (Pl.'s Cross Mem. at 14.) Therefore, instead of reinstating only five out of fifty-one employees terminated from January 15, 2006 to March 22, 2007, the Union argues that all fifty-one employees should be reinstated, and all other disciplinary actions taken during that time should be rescinded.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited; in fact, it is "among the narrowest known to the law." Union Pac. R.R. v. Sheehan, 439 U.S. 89, 91 (1978). A court generally should not review the merits of an arbitration award. United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596 (1960). Indeed, in enforcing an arbitrator's decision, "courts may not go beyond an award to decide questions that the arbitrator did not decide." United Steelworkers of America v. New Idea Farm Equip. Corp., 917 F.2d 964, 968 (6th Cir. 1990). In order to uphold the federal policy of efficiently settling labor disputes through arbitration, see Enterprise Wheel, 363 U.S. at 596, therefore, a court should consider remand of an award for clarification if the award itself is ambiguous. New Idea Farm Equip. Corp., 917 F.2d at 968 (finding remand of an arbitral award proper where the ordered remedy was ambiguous).
In a recent unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit agreed that a "court may remand [an] arbitration award back to [a] panel if [an] award is ambiguous." Burlington Ins. Co v. Trygg-Hansa Ins. Co., 261 Fed. Appx. 631 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Omaha Indem. Co., 943 F.2d 327, 333-34 (3d Cir. 1991); Americas Ins. Co. v. Seagull Compania Naviera, S.A., 774 F.2d 64, 67 (2d Cir. 1985); Island Creek Coal Sales Co. v. City of Gainesville, 764 F.2d 437, 440 (6th Cir. 1985)).
ANALYSIS
Although ARAMARK's interpretation of the Award appears the more reasonable of the two proffered constructions and is consistent with how courts and arbitrators generally deal with rescinded work rules, the court nevertheless finds the Award to be ambiguous. Quite simply, it is unclear whether the Award bars ARAMARK from disciplining all employees under both the new revised and retroactively applied old work rules, or whether the envisioned remedy calls for rescinding the revised rules and reinstating or compensating only those employees who were actually affected by those stricter revisions. This latter interpretation, of course, would allow the old work rules to be applied retroactively. Nothing in the Award, however, indicates whether imposing the old work rules retroactively is permissible. Indeed, it is unclear which, if any, work rules should govern employee misconduct that occurred pending the outcome of the Union challenge to the now rescinded revised work rules. "The arbitrator can easily clarify this issue, and then the court will know precisely what [it is] being asked to confirm and enforce." New Idea Farm Equip., 917 F.2d at 969. Because the court "should not go beyond an award to decide questions that the arbitrator did not decide," id. at 968, remand to the Arbitrator here is appropriate to clear up any remaining ambiguities.For the foregoing reasons, ARAMARK's and the Union's motions for summary judgment will be denied and remand to the Arbitrator ordered. A separate order follows.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:1. the motion for withdrawal of appearance of Jeffrey M. Ross (docket entry no. 22) is GRANTED;
2. the defendant's motion for summary judgment (docket entry no. 13) is DENIED;
3. the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment (docket entry no. 14) is DENIED;
4. the matter is REMANDED to Arbitrator Sue Olinger Shaw for clarification of the Award; and
5. this case shall be Administratively Closed pending clarification by the arbitrator.