Case No: 06-4951 GREENWICH SERVICES, INC v. District 1199c, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Case No: 06-4951
GREENWICH SERVICES, INC.,
Appellant
v.
DISTRICT 1199C, NATIONAL UNION
OF HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE
EMPLOYEES
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
District Court No. 06-CV-3088
District Judge: The Honorable Stewart Dalzell
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
April 8, 2008
Before: SMITH, HARDIMAN,
and COWEN, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 11, 2008)
OPINION
SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Greenwich Services, Inc. (“Greenwich”) appeals the decision of the United States

-- 1 of 5 --

The District Court had jurisdiction over the complaint and the counterclaim pursuant1
to section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). This
Court has appellate jurisdiction over the District Court’s grant of summary judgment
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granting summary judgment in
favor of District 1199C, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees
(“Union”) and confirming the arbitrator’s award in favor of the Union. We will affirm
the judgment of the District Court because the arbitrator’s determination drew its essence
from the collective bargaining agreement and is supported by the record.
Greenwich and the Union were signatories to a collective bargaining agreement
(“Agreement”). The Union filed a grievance contending that Greenwich had an
obligation to pay accrued vacation to those employees whose employment under
Greenwich had concluded. Greenwich refused to pay, arguing that the employees were
not entitled to accrued vacation pay under the terms of the Agreement because they failed
to give notice of their resignations, and because Greenwich had not otherwise terminated
or laid them off. The dispute was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrator issued an
arbitration Opinion and Award on June 27, 2006, concluding that the contract between
the parties entitled any individual who was separating from the employer to receive
accrued vacation pay, regardless of the circumstances of the separation. Subsequently,
Greenwich filed a complaint in the District Court to vacate the arbitration award in favor
of the Union. The parties submitted a joint stipulation of the facts and upon cross-
motions for summary judgment, the District Court entered judgment in favor of the
Union. Greenwich timely appealed.1

-- 2 of 5 --

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Our review of the District Court’s decision is plenary, and we apply the same
standard as the District Court in reviewing the arbitration award. Pennsylvania Power
Co. v. Local Union No. 272, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFL-CIO, 276 F.3d 174, 178 (3d
Cir. 2001). We are not authorized to reconsider the merits of an award even though the
parties may allege that the award rests on errors of fact or on misinterpretation of the
contract. United Paperworkers Int’l. Union, AFL-CIO v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36
(1987). Our review is “confined to ascertaining whether the party seeking arbitration is
making a claim which on its face is governed by the contract.” Id. at 37. If the
arbitrator’s award “draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement,” and is
not merely “his own brand of industrial justice,” the award will not be overturned. Id. at
36 (quotation omitted).
Greenwich argues that the only dispute arising out of the grievance is whether it
terminated the employees, and that the arbitrator was outside the scope of her authority in
granting an award to the Union after finding that the employees were not terminated. We
disagree. It is the arbitrator’s responsibility to interpret the scope of the parties’
submissions. Major League Umpires Ass’n v. Am. League of Prof’l Baseball Clubs, 357
F.3d 272, 279 (3d Cir. 2004). While it is within this Court’s province to review an
arbitrator’s interpretation, we must accord the same level of significant deference to an
arbitrator’s interpretation of the issue submitted as we do to the arbitrator’s interpretation
of the collective bargaining agreement. Id. (citations omitted).

-- 3 of 5 --

Here, the arbitrator determined that she could award accrued vacation pay because
it was evident from the grievance that the gravamen of the dispute between the parties
concerned the failure of Greenwich to pay accrued vacation pay to those employees who
did not continue in its employ. Having carefully reviewed the record, we agree. Notably,
the Grievance Form the Union submitted to Greenwich indicated that the “nature of the
grievance” was the “refusal to pay accumulated vacation pay.” While the Union indicated
in its “statement of the case” that under Greenwich’s policy its members had been
effectively terminated and, as a result, were entitled to the accumulated vacation time, the
arbitrator was within the scope of her authority to interpret the issue more broadly to
determine if these members were entitled to accrued vacation time regardless of the
circumstances of separation.
Greenwich also argues that the arbitrator’s award was not rationally derived from
the collective bargaining agreement. “We must enforce an arbitration award if it is based
on an arguable interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement, and we may only
vacate an award if it is entirely unsupported by the record or if it reflects a ‘manifest
disregard’ of the agreement.” Exxon Shipping Co. v. Exxon Seamen’s Union, 73 F.3d
1287, 1291 (3d Cir. 1996) (citing News Am. Publ’n, Inc. v. Newark Typographical Union,
Local 103, 918 F.2d 21, 24 (3rd Cir. 1990)). Here, the arbitrator examined the provisions
of the collective bargaining agreement that deal with the circumstances under which an
employee is entitled to receive payment of unused vacation time that has accrued. The
applicable provisions are as follows:

-- 4 of 5 --

Vacations: Article XIII, Section 8: An employee who has quit or who has been
discharged or who has lost his/her seniority pursuant to the terms of Article VII
and who has not received his/her vacation from work with pay to which he/she is
entitled will receive a vacation allowance, the amount of which is to be calculated
in accordance with the last preceding paragraph.
Miscellaneous: Article XIX, Section 3: An Employee who gives notice of
resignation, or whose employment is terminated, or who has been laid off, will be
entitled to receive payment of unused vacation time accrued and personal holiday
time accrued on the effective date of the resignation, termination or layoff.
Reading these provisions together, the arbitrator interpreted the contract as providing that
accrued vacation was payable under any set of circumstances where separation from
employment was at issue. These provisions of the collective bargaining agreement
support the arbitrator’s award. We conclude that the arbitrator’s determination draws its
essence from the collective bargaining agreement and does not manifest a disregard of the
agreement. Therefore, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

-- 5 of 5 --