Local 377, RWDSU, UFCW v. 1864 Tenants Association, No. 07-1155 (2d Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
07-1155-cv Local 377, RWDSU, UFCW v. 1864 Tenants Association 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2007 (Argued: June 17, 2008 Decided: July 8, 2008) Docket No. 07-1155-cv - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X LOCAL 377, RWDSU, UFCW, 15 Plaintiff-Appellee, 16 -v.- 17 1864 Tenants Association, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Defendant-Appellant. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, STRAUB, Circuit Judge, and CEDARBAUM, District Judge.1 Appeal from a judgment of the United States District 25 Court for the Southern District of New York (Sand, J.), 26 confirming an arbitration award against defendant under 27 § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. 1 The Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 § 185. Affirmed on the opinion below. Scott B. Gilly, Thompson Wigdor & Gilly LLP, New York, New York (Ariel Y. Graff, on the brief), for Defendant-Appellant. Thomas Rubertone, Jr., Law Offices of Richard M. Greenspan, P.C., Ardsley, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellee. PER CURIAM 1864 Tenants Association2 (the Employer ) appeals from 16 a judgment of the United States District Court for the 17 Southern District of New York (Sand, J.), granting the 18 motion of Local 377, RWDSU, UFCW ( Local 377 ) for summary 19 judgment confirming an arbitration award against the 20 Employer. 21 As set out at greater length by the district judge, the 22 following facts are undisputed. 23 entered into a collective bargaining agreement ( CBA ) that 24 Local 377 negotiated on behalf of the Employer s single 25 employee, a building superintendent. 26 three-year term covered by the CBA, the parties were unable 2 The Employer voluntarily At the end of the 1864 Tenants Association is no longer in existence. The complaint was answered by 1862-66 Third Avenue H.D.F.C. Inc. 2 1 to agree on provisions of a new CBA. 2 interest arbitration clause, the union submitted the dispute 3 to arbitration. 4 not participate in the arbitration. 5 the arbitrator awarded a new CBA covering the following 6 three-year term. 7 award. 8 in a complaint filed on February 14, 2006, the Employer 9 opposed confirmation on several grounds. Pursuant to the CBA s The Employer, despite adequate notice, did On October 24, 2005, The Employer did not move to vacate the Instead, after Local 377 sought to confirm the award Principally, the 10 Employer argued that a CBA covering a bargaining unit 11 composed of a single employee was not a valid contract 12 enforceable under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations 13 Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. 14 In a thorough and thoughtful opinion, Judge Sand 15 analyzed all of the applicable authority and the reasons for 16 granting summary judgment to the plaintiff in this case. 17 Local 377, RWDSU, UFCW v. 1864 Tenants Ass'n, 181 L.R.R.M. 18 2817 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). 19 Because [t]he federal courts are under an independent 20 obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, Lebron v. 21 Nat l R.R. Passenger Corp. (Amtrak), 69 F.3d 650, 659 (2d 22 Cir. 1995), we consider the Employer s new argument that the 3 1 enforcement of this arbitration award exceeds Congress s 2 power under the Commerce Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, 3 cl. 3. 4 reasonably have concluded that there would be a substantial 5 effect on interstate commerce if arbitration awards pursuant 6 to single-employee CBAs were unenforceable in the federal 7 courts: 8 enforcement under the varying contract law principles in the 9 several states, thereby undermining the uniform, national Having considered it, we reject it. Congress could enforcement actions would be relegated to 10 approach to American labor law. 11 Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am. v. 12 Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95, 104 (1962) ( [W]e cannot but 13 conclude that in enacting [§] 301 Congress intended 14 doctrines of federal labor law uniformly to prevail over 15 inconsistent local rules. ). 16 See generally Local 174, The Employer raises additional arguments on appeal that 17 were not raised below; those arguments have been forfeited. 18 [I]t is a well-established general rule that an appellate 19 court will not consider an issue raised for the first time 20 on appeal. 21 Cir. 1994). 22 Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d Affirmed on the opinion below. 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.