Garage Maintenance, etc. v. Greater Metropolitan, etc., et al., No. 13-1565 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseThe Union sought to set aside an arbitration award that ruled in favor of the MADA and several member car dealerships. At issue was the transition between the 2006 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the 2010 CBA and its impact on above-scale time allowances for hybrid car warranty and recall work. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The court agreed with the district court and found that the arbitrator was "warranted" in determining the CBA's plain language to be "silent or ambiguous with respect to the disputed issue - how the above-scale time allowances could be legitimately terminated." With MADA's attorney's unrebutted testimony and the letters documenting other dealerships' similar conduct to help the parties' past practice with respect to the ambiguous CBA language at issue, the court concluded that the arbitration award drew its essence from the CBA. Therefore, the court found no basis to vacate the arbitration award. The court affirmed the district court's order granting MADA's motion to dismiss with prejudice.
Court Description: Civil case - Arbitration. Where the question was whether an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act or the parties' CBA when it terminated above-scale wages and time allowances on hybrid vehicle repair work, the Arbitrator was "warranted" in determining the CBA's plain language was silent on the issue of how above-scale time allowances could be terminated; the arbitrator's award in favor of the dealers drew its essence from the CBA, and the district court did not err in affirming it. [ March 25, 2014
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.