Filed: Nov. 12, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 12, 2014
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Refer Damages Issue Back to Labor Management Committee (Dkt. 19) and Defendant's Response (Dkt. 20), the Court finds the motion should be denied. The Labor-Management Committee (the Committee) convened pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Outside Construction Line Agreement (the Collective-Bargaining Agreement) and determined based on the evidence presented that Defendant violated Artic
Summary: ORDER RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge. UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Refer Damages Issue Back to Labor Management Committee (Dkt. 19) and Defendant's Response (Dkt. 20), the Court finds the motion should be denied. The Labor-Management Committee (the Committee) convened pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Outside Construction Line Agreement (the Collective-Bargaining Agreement) and determined based on the evidence presented that Defendant violated Articl..
More
ORDER
RICHARD A. LAZZARA, District Judge.
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Refer Damages Issue Back to Labor Management Committee (Dkt. 19) and Defendant's Response (Dkt. 20), the Court finds the motion should be denied.
The Labor-Management Committee (the Committee) convened pursuant to Section 1.07 of the Outside Construction Line Agreement (the Collective-Bargaining Agreement) and determined based on the evidence presented that Defendant violated Article 3, Section 3.06 of the Collective-Bargaining Agreement. (Dkt. 1, Exh. C). The Committee fined Defendant "16 hours penalty pay for all affected employees payable at the next pay period which would be Friday December 20th 2013." (Dkt. 1, Exh. C). Plaintiff seeks to stay this proceeding to allow the Committee to clarify what penalty, if any, was to be exacted in the event the fines were not paid by December 20, 2013.1 It correctly points out that the agreement is silent regarding the consequence for failing to pay the award and the entitlement to its fees and costs. Plaintiff claims that the intent of the Committee is therefore unclear as to any continuing penalty and an award of fees and costs.
Defendant responds that the award can be interpreted in only one way and hence, is unambiguous. Both parties cite Am. Fed'n of State, Cty., and Mun. Emps., Local No. 1803 v. Walker Cty. Med. Ctr., 715 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1983), for the proposition that remand is appropriate if an award is ambiguous. Remand is appropriate in such a situation because "[i]t is impermissible for courts to usurp the functions of the arbitrator by reviewing the merits of the award or construing its meaning." Am. Fed'n, 715 F.2d at 1518.2 The award in this case, while silent as to the enforcement for the failure to timely pay the award, is not ambiguous. It clearly states how to calculate the fine and when the fine was due and payable. There is no indication whether the issue of further penalties for failure to timely pay the award was presented to the Committee. Thus, Plaintiff has not made a compelling case for remand for clarification by the Committee.3
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings and Refer Damages Issue Back to Labor Management Committee (Dkt. 19) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
