Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monongahela Valley Hospital Inc. v. United Steel Paper and Forestry Rubber Manufacturing Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union AFL-CIO CLC

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

December 30, 2019

MONONGAHELA VALLEY HOSPITAL INCORPORATED
v.
UNITED STEEL PAPER AND FORESTRY RUBBER MANUFACTURING ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO CLC, Appellant

          Argued November 13, 2019

          Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00371) District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone

          Anthony P. Resnick United Steelworkers International Union Counsel for Appellant

          Hayes C. Stover K&L Gates Counsel for Appellee

          Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

          OPINION

          AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGE

         We have the rare situation where not even our heavy degree of deference to arbitrators can save an arbitration decision and award. Monongahela Valley Hospital, Inc. sought to vacate an arbitration decision and award in favor of United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC. The District Court granted the Hospital's motion for summary judgment and vacated the award. The Union now appeals, arguing that the District Court erred by exceeding its very limited scope of review and should have confirmed the award because it rationally derived from the parties' collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA"). We agree with our District Court colleague, and thus we will affirm.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Hospital has approximately 1, 100 employees, just under half of whom are in a bargaining unit represented by the Union. Working supervisors are not included in the bargaining unit. The CBA, in effect from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017 (thus at all times relevant to this dispute), governed the relationship between the Hospital and the bargaining unit employees. It included a dispute resolution process whereby an aggrieved employee could submit a grievance that if unresolved through the grievance procedure, could be appealed to arbitration.

         Under § 8(F)(3) of the CBA, an arbitrator's authority is limited "only to interpret[ing], apply[ing] or determin[ing] compliance with [its] provisions." The arbitrator specifically lacks the "authority to add to, detract from or alter in any way the provisions of this [CBA]." Id.

         The CBA provision before us-§ 13(B)(6)-concerns the scheduling of vacation. It provides that

[v]acation will, so far as possible, be granted at times most desired by employees; but the final right to allow vacation periods, and the right to change vacation periods[, ] is exclusively reserved to the Hospital. Any changes in vacation schedules may be realized by mutual consent. In the event the Hospital unilaterally changes a schedule causing the employee to suffer financial loss, the Hospital agrees to reimburse the employee for provable loss.

         (Emphases added.)

         Conflicts over vacation scheduling occurred only when there was a limited number of bargaining and non-bargaining unit employees that performed the same or similar functions such that only one employee could be away at a time. There were only three instances in the record before late 2016 when a bargaining unit employee did not receive her desired vacation because a supervisor ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.