NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 2 1

- 1 8 2 1

_____________

UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC.

v.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS

LOCAL 825 AFL

- CIO

( D. NJ No. 2

- 20

- cv

- 14369)

I NT ERNAT IONA L UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS

LOCAL 825 AFL

- CIO

v.

UTILITY SYSTEMS, INC.

( D. NJ No. 2

- 20

- cv

- 14534)

Utility Systems, Inc.,

A p p e l l a n t

______________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF N E W J E R S E Y

(D.C. No s

. 2

- 20

- cv

- 14369 & 2

- 20

- cv

- 14534 )

District Judg e: Honorable S u s a n D

. W i g e n t o n

______________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L

. A

. R

. 34.1(a)

o n April 1, 2022

______________

Before: R E S T R E P O

, R O T H

, and F U E N T E S

, Circuit Judges

(Filed : July 26

, 2 0 2 2 )2 ______________

OPI NION *

______________

RESTREPO

, Circui t Judge

.

T h i s a p p e a l i s a b o u t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n o f a l a b o r d i s p u t e b e t w e e n Appellant U t i l i t y

S y s t e m s ( “ U t i l i t y ” ) a n d A p p e l l e e I n t e r n a t i o n a l U n i o n o f O p e r a t i n g E n g i n e e r s L o c a l 8 2 5

,

A F L

- C I O ( “ L o c a l 8 2 5 ” )

. T h e a r b i t r a t o r e n t e r e d a n a w a r d i n f a v o r o f L o c a l 8 2 5

. U t i l i t y

m o v e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o v acate the a w a r d

, contending t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t o r c o m m i t t e d

m i s c o n d u c t b y r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t i t s r e q u e s t t o r e o p e n t h e a r b i t r a t i o n

— m o n t h s a f t e r U t i l i t y

r e s t e d i t s c a s e

— f o r a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d n o b a s i s t o

c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e arbitrator c o m m i t t e d misconduct a n d c o n f i r m e d t h e arbitration a w a r d

.

W e w i l l a f f

i r m

.

I

. 1

U t i l i t y

, a c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r a c t o r

, a n d L o c a l 8 2 5

, a l a b o r u n i o n

, a r e p a r t i e s t o a

colle ctive b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t ( “ C B A ” )

. T h e C B A

, a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s

, r e q u i r e s

U t i l i t y t o s u b c o n t r a c t w o r k o n l y t o t h o s e s u b c o n t r a c t o r s w h o a g r e e t o f o l l o w c e r t a i n

h i r i n g p r o c e d u r e s

. U t i l i t y

, h o w e v e r

, s u b c o n t r a c t e d w o r k f o r f o u r p r o j e c t s t o c o n t r a c t o r s

t h a t d i d n o t f o l l o w t h e r e q u i r e d p r o c e d u r e s

. L o c a l 8 2 5 f i l e d g r i e v a n c e s f o r t h e v i o l a t i o n s

,

w h i c h procee ded t o a r b i t r a t i o n pursuant t o t h e C B A

.

* This dispos ition is not an opini on of the full Court and pursuan t to I.O.P. 5.7 do es not

con stitute bind ing precedent.

1 As we write for the benefit of the parties, we set out only the facts nece ssary for the

discussion that fo llows.3 A t a r b i t r a t i o n

, U t i l i t y c o n t e n d e d t h a t i t s C B A v i o l a t i o n s w e r e e x c u s e d b y a n

u n w r i t t e n “ w o r k s h a r i n g a g r e e m e n t ” t h a t p r e d a t e d t h e C B A b y d e c a d e s

. A p p

. 2

. B u t t h e

t e s t i m o n y o f U t i l i t y ’ s w i t n e s s e s a t t h e a r b i t r a t i o n u n d e r c u t i t s p o s i t i o n

. U t i l i t y w i t n e s s e s

J a m e s S t e v e n s a n d J a m e s S c a r p o n e c o u l d n o t i d e n t i f y a w o r k s h a r i n g agreement

i n v o l v i n g i t

. A n d U t i l i t y ’ s p r i n c i p a l s

— B e n e d i t a B a r r o s a n d F r a n k P i n h o

— d i d n o t

p r o d u c e a n y w r i t i n g b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s s u p p o r t i n g t h e existence o f t h e w o r k s h a r i n g

a g r e e m e n t

.

M o n t h s a f t e r U t i l i t y r e s t e d i t s c a s e a n d t h e a r b i t r a t i o n h e a r i n g s c o n c l u d e d

, b u t

bef ore t h e a r b i t r a t i o n decision

, U t i l i t y a s k e d t h e a r b i t r a t o r t o r e o p e n t h e h e a r i n g s t o

p e r m i t i t t o r e c a l l B a r r o s a n d P i n h o a n d t o c a l l a d d i t i o n a l

, t h e n

- u n i d e n t i f i e d

r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f L o c a l 8 2 5 f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f r e b u t t i n g t h e t e s t i m o n y o f S c a r p o n e a n d

S t e v e n s

— w h o

, a s n o t e d

, w e r e U t i l i t y ’ s o w n witnesses

. L o c a l 8 2 5 o p p o s e d r e o p e n i n g t h e

a r

b i t r a t i o n

. T h e a r b i t r a t o r d e n i e d U t i l i t y ’ s r e q u e s t

, r e a s o n i n g t h a t “ [ b ] o t h p a r t i e s h a d

a m p l e o p p o r t u n i t y t o p r e s e n t t h e i r c a s e s

- i n

- c h i e f ” a n d t h a t r e o p e n i n g t h e h e a r i n g s w o u l d

b e “ a n a t h e m a t o t h e a r b i t r a t i o n p r o c e s s

. ” A p p

. 3 ( q u o t i n g A r b

. O p

. a t 3 )

.

S u b s e q u e n t l y

, t h e a r b i t r a t o r i s s u e d a d e c i s i o n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t n o b i n d i n g w o r k

s h a r i n g a g r e e m e n t e x i s t e d

, f i n d i n g t h a t U t i l i t y h a d v i o l a t e d t h e C B A

, a n d a w a r d i n g

$ 3 6 3

, 6 1 3

. 4 9 i n d a m a g e s t o L o c a l 8 2 5

.

U t i l i t y then moved to vacate the arbitration award in the U n i t e d S t a t e s District

Court for the District of New Jersey

, a r g u i n g t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t o r ’ s r e f u s a l t o r e o p e n t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s f o r a d d i t i o n a l w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y w a s m i s c o n d u c t t h a t d e p r i v e d U t i l i t y o f a

f

a i r a n d c o m p l e t e h e a r i n g

.4 T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t n o t e d t h a t U t i l i t y ’ s r e q u e s t t o r e o p e n t h e arbitration w a s n o t d u e

t o n e w l y d i s c o v e r e d ( o r e v e n o v e r l o o k e d ) e v i d e n c e

. I n d e e d

, t h e additional testimon y

U t i l i t y w a n t e d t o p r e s e n t w a s t o rebut the testimony of it s own two witn esses, and not to

disting uish or counter any testimony put on by Local 825

. T h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r

o b s e r v e d t h a t i f U t i l i t y w a n t e d t o r e b u t o r c l a r i f y t h e t e s t i m o n y o f i t s w i t n e s s e s

, i t c o u l d

h a v e d o n e s o b e f o r e i t c l o s e d i t s c a s e

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d n o b a s i s t o

c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t o r c o m m i t t e d m i s c o n d u c t o r t h a t U t i l i t y w a s d e p r i v e d o f a f a i r

h e a r i n g

. I t t h e n d e n i e d U t i l i t y ’ s m o t i o n t o v a c a t e t h e a r b i t r a t i o n a w a r d a n d g r a n t e d L o c a l

8 2 5 ’ s c r o s s

- m o t i o n t o c o n f i r m i t

. T h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w e d

. 2

II

.

“When rev iewing a dist rict court ’ s denial of a motion to vacate an arbitration

award, we review its legal conclusions de novo a nd its factual findings for clear error.”

Whitehead v. Pullman Grp. , LLC , 811 F.3d 116, 119 n. 23 (3 d C ir. 2016). We may affirm

on any gr ounds supported b y the record. Hass en v. Gov ’ t of V.I. , 861 F.3d 108 , 114 (3d

Cir. 2017)

.

There is a strong presumpt i on under the Federal Arbitration Act in favor of

enforcing arbitrati on aw ards. E

. g

. , Brentwood Me d. As socs. v. United Mine Workers of

Am. , 396 F.3d 237, 241 (3d Cir. 2005)

. We review them under an “extremely deferential

standard,” the application of whi c h “is generally to affirm easily the arbitration award.”

Dluhos v. Stras berg , 321 F.3d 365, 370 ( 3d Ci r. 2003).

2 T he Distr i ct Court had juris diction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. W e have juris diction

p u r s u a n t t o 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and 9 U.S. C. § 16(a)

.5 O u r review is guided by a district court’s “very limited role in reviewing the

decision of an arbitrator appointed pursuant to a collective ba r gaining agreement.” Citgo

Asphalt Ref. Co. v. Paper, Allied

- Indus., Chem . & Energy Workers Int ’ l Un ion Loc. No.

2

- 991 , 385 F.3d 809, 815 (3d Cir. 2004)

. Arbitrators h a v e wide latitude in how they

conduct proceedings

. S e e Office & Prof ’ l Em ps. Int ’ l Uni o n, Local No. 471 v.

Brownsville Gen. Hosp. , 186 F.3d 326, 334

– 35 (3d Cir. 1999)

.

A court may vacat e an arbitration award i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s

, h o w e v e r

,

i n c l u d i n g “ where the arbitrators were gui lty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the

hearing, upo n sufficien t cause shown, or in refusing to hear evidence pertinent a nd

ma terial to the controversy

, or of any other misbehavior by which t he rights of any part y

have been prejudiced [

. ] ” 9 U.S.C. § 10(a) ( 3 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y

, i t is “axiomatic that a district

c ourt may vacate an award if a party to an arbitration proceeding has not been given

notice and opp or tu n ity to present arguments and eviden ce on the merits of the di spute.”

Teamsters Local 312 v. Matlack, Inc. , 118 F.3d 985, 995 (3d Cir. 1997) (citations

o mitted). “ The statute cannot be read, however, to intend that every fail ure to receive

relevant e vi de n ce constitutes misconduct which wil l require the vacation of an

arbitrator ’ s award

. ” Newark Stereotypers ’ Union No. 18 v. Newark Morning Ledger Co.

,

39 7 F.2d 594, 599 (3d Cir. 1968)

. R a t h e r

, “ m isconduct” under S e c t i o n 1 0 ( a ) ( 3 ) i s

conduct “ which so a ff ec t s the rights of a party that it may be said that [ t h e p a r t y ] was

deprived of a fair hearing. ” I d

.6 I II

.

U t i l i t y c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o v a c a t e t h e a r b i t r a t i o n

a w a r d

, a r g u i n g t h a t t h e a r b i t r a t o r ’ s d e c i s i o n n o t t o r e o p e n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s w a s

m i s c o n d u c t t h a t d e p r i v e d Utility o f a fair opportunity to present all relevant information

and testimon y

. W e d i s a g r e e

.

A s the District Court noted, the arbitrator gave Utility ample opportuni ty to

present w itnesses a nd arg uments

. Utility voluntarily rested i t s case

. Utility s u g g e s t s that

it only rested its case because it anticipated that the matter would settle prior to the

arbitrator issuing a decision, b u t that was Utility’ s prer ogative. Utility’s requ est to

reopen the record was not based on newly d iscovered

— or even ove rlooked evidence.

Rather, Utility wanted to reb u t certain testimony from its own witnesses

— largely by

allowing its princi pals ( Barros and Pinho) a chanc e to reframe their earlier testim ony.

T h e d e c i s i o n s f i n d i n g a r b i t r a t o r m i s c o n d u c t t h a t U t i l i t y c i t e s a r e e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e

,

a n d i t c i t e s n o c a s e f i n d i n g m i s c o n d u c t b a s e d o n a n a r b i t r a t o r ’ s r e f u s a l t o r e o p e n

p r o c e e d i n g s m o n t h s a f t e r t h e r e q u e s t i n g p a r t y r e s t e d i t s c a s e

. R e g a r d l e s s

, w e d i s c e r n n o

m i s c o n d u c t h e r e

. We agree with the Dist r ict Court th at the arbitrator’s refusal to reopen

the proceedings to allow the proposed testim ony

— mo nths after Utility rested its case

—

did not deprive it of a fair hearing.

I V

.

For the for e going reaso ns, t he judgment of the Dist r ict Court is affirmed

.