07-1155-cv
Local 377, RWDSU, UFCW v. 1864 Tenants Association
1
2 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
3
4 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
5
6 August Term, 2007
7
8
9 (Argued: June 17, 2008 Decided: July 8, 2008)
10
11 Docket No. 07-1155-cv
12
13 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
14 LOCAL 377, RWDSU, UFCW,
15 Plaintiff-Appellee,
16 -v.-
17 1864 Tenants Association,
18 Defendant-Appellant.
19 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
20 Before: JACOBS, Chief Judge, STRAUB, Circuit
21 Judge, and CEDARBAUM, District Judge.1
22
23
24 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 § 185. Affirmed on the opinion below.
2
3 Scott B. Gilly, Thompson Wigdor
4 & Gilly LLP, New York, New York
5 (Ariel Y. Graff, on the brief),
6 for Defendant-Appellant.
7
8 Thomas Rubertone, Jr., Law
9 Offices of Richard M. Greenspan,
10 P.C., Ardsley, New York, for
11 Plaintiff-Appellee.
12
13 PER CURIAM
14
15 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. The Employer voluntarily
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. At the end of the
26 three-year term covered by the CBA, the parties were unable
2
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. Pursuant to the CBA’s
2 interest arbitration clause, the union submitted the dispute
3 to arbitration. The Employer, despite adequate notice, did
4 not participate in the arbitration. On October 24, 2005,
5 the arbitrator awarded a new CBA covering the following
6 three-year term. The Employer did not move to vacate the
7 award. Instead, after Local 377 sought to confirm the award
8 in a complaint filed on February 14, 2006, the Employer
9 opposed confirmation on several grounds. 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. Having considered it, we reject it. Congress could
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: enforcement actions would be relegated to
8 enforcement under the varying contract law principles in the
9 several states, thereby undermining the uniform, national
10 approach to American labor law. See generally Local 174,
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 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.” Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d
21 Cir. 1994).
22 Affirmed on the opinion below.
4