Hearing Date: March 7, 2018, 9:30 a.m. (Atlantic Standard Time)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

-------------------------------------------------------------x

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,

et al.,

Debtors.1

-------------------------------------------------------------x

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,

Debtor.

-------------------------------------------------------------x

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

This filing relates only to the

Commonwealth and shall only

be filed in the lead Case No. 17

BK 3283-LTS.

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES

INTERNATIONAL UNION AND INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED

AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT

WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW) IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN

ORDER TO PERMIT THE PROCESSING THROUGH RESOLUTION OF

EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION AND GRIEVANCE PROCEEDINGS

1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as

applicable, are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3283-LTS)

(Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation

(Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto

Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last

Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees Retirement System of the Government of

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS); and (v) Puerto

Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four

Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3747) (Title III case numbers are listed as Bankruptcy Case numbers

due to software limitations).

00935460.2

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 16
-iTABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

I. THE MOTION IS NOT MOOT, SINCE THE COMMONWEALTH HAS NOT

AGREED TO PROVIDE ALL THE RELIEF THE MOTION SEEKS............................. 2

II. SECTION 362(b)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE EXEMPTS THE

PREPETITION ACTIONS FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY ....................................... 4

III. EVEN IF THE AUTOMATIC STAY APPLIES TO THE PREPETITION

ACTIONS, AMPLE CAUSE EXISTS TO LIFT THE STAY........................................... 7

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 16
-iiTABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

In re Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia S.A.,

303 B.R. 1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003)...........................................................................................1

City of Stockton, California,

484 B.R. 372 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012).......................................................................................9

Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd.,

Docket..................................................................................................................................8, 11

McMullen v. Sevigny,

386 F.3d 320 (1st Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................5, 6

Pagan v. Fund. Hosp. Dr. Pila,

1983 WL 204205 (P.R. Apr. 28, 1983)......................................................................................6

In re Pressley,

518 B.R. 867 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2014)...........................................................................................1

In re Richter,

2010 WL 4272915 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Oct. 22, 2010) ..............................................................1

Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills,

353 U.S. 448 (1957)...................................................................................................................6

In re Trevino,

564 B.R. 890 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2017) ......................................................................................1

United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.,

363 U.S. 574 (1960)...................................................................................................................6

Statutes and Rules

3 L.P.R.A. § 1451 ............................................................................................................................6

3 L.P.R.A. § 1452 ............................................................................................................................4

48 U.S.C. §2161(1)(c)(2).................................................................................................................4

Bankruptcy Code Section 362(b)(4) ........................................................................................4, 5, 6

Bankruptcy Code Section 1113(f) .................................................................................................11

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 16
-1-

To the Honorable United States District Court Judge Laura Taylor Swain:

Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) and International Union, United

Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) (“UAW”), on

behalf of themselves and their local affiliates in Puerto Rico, submit this reply memorandum in

support of the January 16, 2018 Joint Motion of American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO and American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, for an Order

to Permit the Processing Through Resolution of Employment Arbitration and Grievance

Proceedings (“Motion”) [Docket Entry #2245]. SEIU and UAW filed a joinder to the Motion

[Docket Entry No. 2249].1 SEIU and UAW explain below why the Motion should be granted.2

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. In response to the Motion, the Commonwealth reserves the right to block

from resolution a potentially large set of prepetition grievances and arbitrations: those that it

determines, in its sole discretion, may somehow affect, even indirectly or minimally, a fiscal plan

or any of the Title III cases. SEIU and UAW submit, as argued in the Motion, that all prepetition

grievances and arbitrations should proceed to resolution (with the collection or enforcement of

1 The SEIU represents approximately 2 million public service workers throughout North

America. SEIU members employed by the Commonwealth belong to one of two SEIU local

chapters: SEIU Local 1996/Sindicato Puertoriqueno de Trabajadores y Trabajadores (“SPT”),

and SEIU Local 1199/Union General de Trabajadores (“UGT”). Approximately 16,000 SPT and

UGT members are employed by the Commonwealth or its instrumentalities. The UAW, with

more than 400,000 active members in virtually every sector of the American economy, has eight

affiliated local chapters in Puerto Rico, the largest of which are UAW Local 2396, which

represents school cafeteria employees, and UAW Local 2373, which represents employees of the

Commonwealth’s Treasury Department. Approximately 6,800 UAW members are employed by

the Commonwealth or its instrumentalities.

2 Because of their joinder to the Motion, SEIU and UAW have standing to pursue it. See In

re Pressley, 518 B.R. 867, 870 n. 5 (Bankr. D.S.C. 2014); In re Richter, 2010 WL 4272915, at

*1 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Oct. 22, 2010); In re Aerovias Nacionales de Colombia S.A., 303 B.R. 1, 7

(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003); see also In re Trevino, 564 B.R. 890, 910–11 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2017).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 16
-2-

any monetary awards against the Commonwealth, absent assumption of the collective bargaining

agreements, generally only paid pursuant to the Title III claims process).

2. The prepetition grievances and arbitrations do not pose a threat to any

fiscal plan or Title III case. In fact, among the many thousands of pending prepetition grievances

and arbitrations, the Commonwealth in its February 23, 2018 response to the Motion

(“Response”) [Docket Entry No. 2585] fails to identify a single one that it claims poses such a

danger. Even assuming there were one, the Commonwealth would have all available defenses to

oppose the grievance at every stage of the grievance-arbitration process. Moreover, arbitration

awards are not self-enforcing. The Commonwealth would have a full opportunity, in any

litigation reviewing an award, to assert its contention that the award threatened a fiscal plan or a

Title III case.

3. The reality is that giving employees who have a workplace grievance an

opportunity to be heard, and to have their grievance resolved, would cause the Commonwealth

no harm. To the contrary, a functioning grievance-arbitration mechanism that resolves pending

workplace disputes would help preserve labor peace, would boost employee morale, and would

lead to a more productive and motivated workforce -- exactly what the Commonwealth needs to

accomplish the goals set out in any fiscal plan. By instilling a sense of order and due process in

the Commonwealth’s public-sector workplaces, a fully functioning grievance-arbitration

mechanism would also help restore workers’ shaken confidence in the governance of Puerto

Rico, encouraging them to stay and to rebuild the Island’s economy. That’s what Puerto Rico

needs.

I. THE MOTION IS NOT MOOT, SINCE THE COMMONWEALTH HAS NOT

AGREED TO PROVIDE ALL THE RELIEF THE MOTION SEEKS

4. The Commonwealth argues first that “the Motion is moot and need not be

decided by the Court” because, it asserts, “the Commonwealth consents to the Movants’ request

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 16
-3-

to lift the Title III Stay to allow the Actions to proceed.” Response ¶5. This argument fails

because the Commonwealth has not agreed to all the relief the Motion seeks.

5. The Motion seeks a declaration that the Title III stay does not apply to

prepetition grievances and arbitrations. See Motion ¶4 (first bullet point), ¶¶25-29. The

Commonwealth does not agree to such a declaration, but asserts the contrary position, that the

stay applies. See Response ¶¶13-19.

6. The Motion also seeks, in the alternative, that the stay be lifted to allow all

prepetition grievances and arbitrations to proceed. See Motion ¶4 (first bullet point), ¶¶30-35.

The Commonwealth does not agree to that either. In particular, it does not agree that prepetition

grievances and arbitration should proceed if the grievances, in the Commonwealth’s unfettered

judgment, would in some undefined way “affect the fiscal plan” or “the Title III cases.”

Response ¶2. This potentially broad category of cases would, according to the Commonwealth,

include “prepetition actions that seek injunctive relief other than reinstatement,” id. at 6 n.3, or

that seek a remedy that would, in some undefined manner, “impede or be inconsistent with” “any

Commonwealth statutes that are essential for the Fiscal Plan to succeed.” Id. Thus, while

purporting to agree to everything the Motion seeks, the Commonwealth carves out a potentially

sizeable, vaguely defined exception that would allow it to block a broad swath of prepetition

grievances and arbitrations.

7. The August 22, 2017 order [Docket Entry No. 1125] that the

Commonwealth cites in support of its mootness argument, see Response ¶5, is easily

distinguished. There, a plaintiff in a prepetition disability discrimination lawsuit moved, on

behalf of herself and her daughter, to lift the stay, and the Commonwealth consented to allow the

litigation to proceed to completion. The Court wrote in its order cancelling the hearing on the

motion that it “need not address the arguments raised by the Movants” because “the Movants

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 16
-4-

have been granted complete relief.” Docket Entry #1125, at 2. Here, by contrast, as explained

above, the Commonwealth has not acted to provide the complete relief sought in the Motion.3

II. SECTION 362(b)(4) OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE EXEMPTS THE

PREPETITION ACTIONS FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY

8. The Motion explains, see Motion ¶26, that Section 362(b)(4) of the

Bankruptcy Code, made applicable to PROMESA, exempts the prepetition grievances and

arbitrations from the Title III automatic stay because Commonwealth statutory law mandates the

establishment of grievance procedures and requires the use of a government agency -- the

Appellate Public Service Commission (“Commission”) (Comisión Apelativa del Servicio

Público, in Spanish) -- for the conduct of arbitrations. See 3 L.P.R.A. § 1452. The arbitrators

who hear the grievances are salaried employees of the Commission, and it is the Commission

that decides which arbitrator will be assigned to which case.4

9. The Commonwealth, citing no authority for the proposition, argues that

Section 362(b)(4) cannot apply in cases where the debtor is a government and not a private

entity. That PROMESA incorporates Section 362(b)(4) refutes the proposition. PROMESA is a

statute that contemplates only governmental entities as debtors. See 48 U.S.C. §2161(1)(c)(2).

If Section 362(b)(4) were inapplicable in cases against government debtors, Congress would

3 SEIU and UAW appreciate the Commonwealth’s recognition and agreement that

postpetition grievances and arbitrations should proceed in the ordinary course. See Response ¶3.

However, we note that paragraph 5 of the Response asserts that there will be no collection or

enforcement of monetary awards for “Actions,” a term which the Response earlier in the

document defines to include postpetition grievances and arbitrations, see id. ¶2. This may have

been a drafting error by the Commonwealth. In any event, unlike prepetition grievances and

arbitrations, grievances and arbitrations concerning postpetition events give rise to administrative

claims that should be payable in full in the ordinary course during the Title III proceedings.

4 On the mainland, by contrast, the parties to a labor arbitration typically choose the arbitrator

and split the fees charged by the arbitrator. Moreover, on the mainland, labor arbitrators are

typically not government employees, but private individuals who maintain an alternative dispute

resolution practice.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 16
-5-

have excluded that provision from PROMESA, as it excluded so many other provisions of the

Bankruptcy Code. See id. §2161(a). That Congress did not exclude Section 362(b)(4) from

PROMESA shows that it contemplated the application of Section 362(b)(4) to exempt from the

automatic stay actions against governmental debtors in PROMESA Title III cases.

10. The Commonwealth next argues that Section 362(b)(4) cannot apply when

a private party initiates the proceeding. See Response ¶21. That is certainly wrong. In

McMullen v. Sevigny, 386 F.3d 320 (1st Cir. 2004), the First Circuit held that Section 362(b)(4)

applied, and exempted from the automatic stay, a proceeding before a state agency -- the

Massachusetts Division of Registration of Real Estate Agents -- that was initiated by the

complaint of a private party. In that case, a private party involved in an aborted real estate deal

claimed the real estate broker improperly retained the party’s deposit. Here, the fact that an

employee or union initiates the grievance cannot bar application of Section 362(b)(4), since it is

a government agency -- Commission -- that provides the statutorily mandated mechanism for

resolving the grievance.

11. The National Labor Relation Board (“NLRB”) cases cited in the Motion,

see Motion ¶27, further refute the Commonwealth’s position. NLRB cases almost invariably

begin with the filing of an unfair labor practice charge by a union, employee or other private

party. See National Labor Relations Board, “The NLRB Process.”5 That NLRB unfair labor

practice proceedings involve aggrieved private parties seeking to vindicate their rights in no way

precludes application of Section 362(b)(4). For the same reason, Section 362(b)(4) applies, and

exempts from the automatic stay, administrative proceedings under Puerto Rico’s mandatory

labor-dispute resolution statute, even though initiated by aggrieved private parties.

5 The NLRB Process, National Labor Relations Board, available at

https://www.nlrb.gov/resources/nlrb-process.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 16
-6-

12. In McMullen, the First Circuit concluded that Section 362(b)(4) applied

because “the state power to regulate the licensure of real estate brokers is designed to advance a

sufficiently important public policy so as to trump the competing interests fostered by the

automatic stay.” 386 F.3d at 325. Under that First Circuit analysis, the question whether Section

362(b)(4) applies here turns on whether the public policy behind Puerto Rico’s statutorily

mandated grievance-arbitration mechanism is “sufficiently important” so as to trump the

interests behind the automatic stay.

13. The public policy behind the Commonwealth’s grievance-arbitration

mechanism, like the policy behind all union-employer grievance procedures, is of paramount

importance: nothing less than the maintenance of labor peace. See 3 L.P.R.A. § 1451 (statement

of policy noting that the “organization of public sector employees in unions, and collective

bargaining, shall encourage and promote the solution of disputes through mediation of

complaints and arbitration mechanisms”); see also Pagan v. Fund. Hosp. Dr. Pila, 1983 WL

204205 (P.R. Apr. 28, 1983) (internal citation omitted) (Westaw English Translation) (“The

Puerto Rican experience in these past decades has shown that arbitration is a mechanism that

tends to maintain industrial stability and peace, the principal aims of our labor legislation.”). As

the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, an “agreement to arbitrate grievance disputes is the quid

pro quo for an agreement not to strike,” and reflects the considered conclusion that “industrial

peace can be best obtained only in that way.” Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448,

455 (1957); see also United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S.

574, 582 (1960) (objective of arbitration process is to further “common goal of uninterrupted

production”).

14. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, now more than ever, needs a

productive, motivated workforce to help rebuild the Island’s battered infrastructure and economy

and to provide essential services to its people. A functioning grievance machinery that assures

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 16
-7-

labor peace by giving aggrieved employees a chance to be heard will help maintain the

workforce’s morale and commitment. The importance of the public policy behind the

Commonwealth’s grievance-arbitration mechanism easily trumps any competing concerns here

regarding the automatic stay. Section 362(b)(4) thus applies and exempts the prepetition

grievances and arbitrations from the automatic stay.

III. EVEN IF THE AUTOMATIC STAY APPLIES TO THE PREPETITION

ACTIONS, AMPLE CAUSE EXISTS TO LIFT THE STAY

15. Even if the Court were to conclude that the stay applies, ample cause

exists to lift it to allow the prepetition grievances and arbitration to move forward to resolution.

As the Motion explains, the applicable Sonnax factors all weigh heavily in favor of lifting the

stay. See Motion ¶32.

16. First, Sonnax factor 1 favors granting the Motion because the Motion

seeks relief that “would permit the complete resolution of thousands of routine employment

arbitrations and grievances.” Id. The Commonwealth, citing cases from other circuits, argues

that Sonnax factor 1 refers to resolving bankruptcy issues, and asserts that factor 1 does not

support the Motion because the grievances and arbitrations “would not resolve any issues

relevant to the Commonwealth’s Title III plan of adjustment.” Response ¶27. The

Commonwealth’s constricted reading of factor 1 is inconsistent with this Court’s approach. In

Fin. Oversight & Mgmt Bd. for Puerto Rico, No. 17 BK 3282-LTS (July 12, 2017) (Docket

Entry No. 620), this Court found that factor 1 weighed in favor of lifting the stay to allow a labor

arbitration to proceed to decision, not because it would resolve bankruptcy issues or issues under

the Commonwealth’s Title III plan of adjustment, but because it would resolve the merits and

remedial issues in the employee’s dispute with the Commonwealth, namely, “the question of

quantification of the DLHR’s financial liability on Perez-Rivera’s employment discrimination

claims.” Id. at 3. Similarly here, factor 1 weighs in favor of granting the Motion because doing

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 16
-8-

so would allow resolution of the workplace disputes underlying the prepetition grievances and

arbitrations at issue.

17. The Motion further explains that Sonnax factor 2 weighs in favor of

granting the Motion because allowing prepetition grievances and arbitrations “to proceed

through resolution without any monetary recovery against the Commonwealth, while preserving

all defenses, including any in relation to any certified fiscal plan cannot possibly interfere with

progress of the Title III Case.” Motion ¶32. The Commonwealth asserts in a conclusory manner

that letting the prepetition grievances and arbitrations proceed would “interfere with the Title III

case because it would affect the application of the Fiscal Plan and the laws that are essential for

the Fiscal Plan to succeed.” Response ¶28. The Commonwealth fails to provide any explanation

for this assertion or point to any grievances that would constitute such interference. The

assertion runs directly counter to this Court’s ruling in Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., Docket

Entry No. 620, where the Court found that resolution of a labor arbitration against the

Commonwealth “would not interfere materially, if at all, with the Title III case.” Id. at 3.

18. The Motion next explains that Sonnax factor 4 weighs in favor of granting

the Motion because the Commission that processes the grievances and arbitrations is a

“specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise [that] has been established to hear the cause of

action.” Motion ¶¶30, 32. Indeed, in Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., Docket Entry No. 620, this

Court recognized that the arbitration hearing in that case was “conducted by a specialized

tribunal.” Id. at 3. The Commonwealth makes no attempt to dispute that the Commission is a

specialized tribunal for purposes of Sonnax factor 4, but simply asserts that no individual

Sonnax factor is dispositive and repeats its conclusory refrain that granting the Motion would

have a negative impact on the fiscal plan and the Title III cases. Response ¶29.

19. The Motion further explains that Sonnax factor 7 favors granting the

Motion because allowing the prepetition grievances and arbitrations “to proceed through

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 11 of 16
-9-

resolution, without any monetary recovery, cannot possibly prejudice other creditors.” Motion

¶32. The Commonwealth makes no attempt to explain how resolution of the prepetition

grievances and arbitrations, without any recovery of a monetary remedy except through the

claims process, would prejudice other creditors, other than to assert, in a conclusory fashion, that

allowing the grievances and arbitration to proceed would impede the Commonwealth’s capacity

to execute the fiscal plan and thus would have a negative impact on other creditors. See

Response ¶30.

20. City of Stockton, California, 484 B.R. 372 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 2012) (cited

at Response ¶30), provides no support for the Commonwealth’s position. Stockton concerned

not a labor grievance or arbitration, but a lawsuit by the former chief of the debtor city’s fire

department against the city and two top city executives. The Stockton court, which did not apply

or discuss the Sonnax factors, declined to lift the stay because the lawsuit would have consumed

the time and attention of the two city executives during a period when they were focusing on the

Chapter 9 case and because the city had to bear the expense of engaging outside counsel to

defend itself and the two executives in the lawsuit. See id. at 378-79.

21. Here, the Commonwealth points to no grievance or arbitration that names

any Commonwealth officials as respondents, let alone top Commonwealth officials who would

be involved in the formulation and effectuation of the fiscal plan. Grievances and arbitrations lie

against the employer, which is the Commonwealth itself or its agencies. Moreover, the

Commonwealth nowhere claims that it would have to hire outside or additional counsel to defend

against the grievances and arbitration. The same corps of management officials and counsel who

routinely defended the Commonwealth in grievances and arbitrations before the Title III cases

could continue to do so now.

22. The Motion next explains that Sonnax factor 10 favors granting the

Motion because judicial economy would be served by having the prepetition grievances and

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 12 of 16
-10-

arbitrations proceed to resolution through established non-judicial channels. See Motion ¶32.

The Commonwealth’s only response is to cite this Court’s November 3, 2017 decision [Docket

Entry #1624] and to argue based on it that relief from the stay is not warranted when a movant’s

claim is at an early stage. See Response ¶31. While some of the prepetition grievances and

arbitrations may be at an early stage, others may be well along towards resolution. In any event,

this Court’s November 3, 2017 decision, which concerned an administrative proceeding against

PREPA, is inapt. The Court there noted that “the requested relief from the automatic stay would

not result in a complete or materially significant partial resolution of Movant’s claims against

PREPA,” id. at 7, and also that PREPA would be prejudiced by having to focus on the

proceeding when, in the wake of Hurricane Maria, it “must focus on the restoration of power to

the vast majority of Puerto Rico’s residents.” Id. Here, by contrast, lifting the stay would result

in resolution, in non-judicial proceedings, of the pending prepetition grievances and arbitrations.

Moreover, the Commonwealth does not claim that it is facing an immediate crisis -- like PREPA

was in the wake of the hurricane -- that would prevent its labor relations professionals from

processing the prepetition grievances and arbitrations.

23. The Motion explains that Sonnax factor 12, regarding impact on the

parties and balance of harm, favors granting the Motion because “[f]ailure to move ahead with

the Prepetition Proceedings will leave the thousands of employees without any recourse to

address workplace injustices.” Motion ¶32. The Commonwealth has nothing to say in response,

other than to repeat the conclusory refrain -- without explanation -- that allowing these routine

labor disputes to proceed through established mechanisms would somehow “limit the capacity of

the Commonwealth to comply with the Fiscal Plan.” Response ¶32.

24. Finally, the Commonwealth argues that Sonnax factor 6 weighs against the

Motion because the Commonwealth itself, rather than third parties, is the respondent in the

prepetition grievances and arbitrations. To support this argument, the Commonwealth cites cases

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 13 of 16
-11-

from outside this Circuit. But this Court’s decision in Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd., Docket Entry

No. 620, shows that naming the Commonwealth or one of its agencies in the proceeding is no

obstacle to lifting the automatic stay. See id. at 4 (lifting stay to allow labor arbitration to

proceed against Commonwealth’s Department of Labor and Human Resources).

25. The Motion explains that in Chapter 11 cases, Section 1113(f) of the

Bankruptcy Code allows grievances and arbitrations to proceed under unrejected collective

bargaining agreements. See Motion ¶18. The Commonwealth’s response, that Section 1113(f)

does not apply under PROMESA, see Response ¶17, misses the point. The point is that in

numerous large, complex Chapter 11 cases where the debtors have unionized workforces,

grievances and arbitrations proceed in the ordinary course, with no adverse impact on the debtors

or their efforts to reorganize. To the contrary, giving aggrieved employees a chance to be heard

and to have their grievances resolved benefits the debtor, by helping maintain labor peace and

boosting employee morale and productivity. The same would be true here.

26. In sum, even were the Court to determine that the stay applies to the

prepetition grievances and arbitrations, ample cause exists to lift the stay to allow them to

proceed.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 14 of 16
-12-

Dated: March 2, 2018 /s/ Peter D. DeChiara

Richard M. Seltzer

Peter D. DeChiara

Hiram M. Arnaud

Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP

900 Third Avenue, 21st Floor

New York, New York 10022

(212) 356-0216

rseltzer@cwsny.com

pdechiara@cwsny.com

harnaud@cwsny.com

/s/ Miguel Simonet Sierra

Miguel Simonet Sierra

USDC # 210101

MONSERRATE SIMONET &

GIERBOLINI

101 San Patricio Ave., Suite 1120

Guaynabo, PR 00968

Tel.: (787) 620-5300

Fax: (787) 620-5305

msimonet@msglawpr.com

Attorneys for Service Employees

International Union and International

Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and

Agricultural Implement Workers of

America (UAW)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 15 of 16
-13-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 2nd day of March 2018, I electronically filed

the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will notify all

counsel of record and caused to be mailed or emailed a copy, as provided in the Court-approved

Case Management Procedures in this case.

Dated: March 2, 2018 /s/ Hiram M. Arnaud

HIRAM M. ARNAUD

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:2650 Filed:03/02/18 Entered:03/02/18 15:46:28 Desc: Main

Document Page 16 of 16