NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

 

WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW JERSEY,

INC.,

 Plaintiff,

 v. 

TEAMSTERS-EMPLOYERS LOCAL 945

PENSION FUND and TRUSTEES OF

TEAMSTERS-EMPLOYERS LOCAL 945

PENSION FUND,

 Defendants. 

 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Hon. Faith S. Hochberg

Civil No. 10-3984 (FSH)

ORDER

Date: September 27, 2010

HOCHBERG, District Judge:

This matter comes before the Court upon Plaintiff Waste Management of New Jersey

Inc.’s motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to enjoin the

arbitration between Waste Management and Defendant Teamsters-Employers Local 945 Pension

Fund (the “Pension Fund”) scheduled to begin before Arbitrator Margaret Leibowitz on

September 29, 2010. The arbitration has been convened under the terms of the “Resolution

Regarding Collection of Delinquent Contributions From Participating/Contributing Employers,”

a June 2009 amendment to the Amended Agreement and Declaration of Trust of Defendant

Teamsters-Employers Local 945 Pension Fund (the “Resolution”). The Court has fully

considered the submitted briefs and accompanying certifications without oral argument pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78.

1

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 28 Filed 09/27/10 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 527
Injunctive relief is “an extraordinary remedy,” which should be granted only in “limited

circumstances.” KOS Pharm., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 708 (3d Cir. 2004). The

movant bears the burden to “show that (1) it has a likelihood of success on the merits, (2) it will

suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is denied, (3) granting preliminary relief will not result in

even greater harm to the nonmoving party, and (4) the public interest favors such relief.” Rogers

v. Corbett, 468 F.3d 188, 192 (3d Cir. 2006).

“If a court determines that a valid arbitration agreement does not exist or that the matter

at issue clearly falls outside of the substantive scope of the agreement, it is obliged to enjoin

arbitration.” PaineWebber, Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507, 511 (3d Cir. 1990). In considering

an application for temporary restraints, the Third Circuit has determined that “the harm to a party

would be per se irreparable if a court were to abdicate its responsibility to determine the scope of

an arbitrator's jurisdiction and, instead, were to compel the party, who has not agreed to do so, to

submit to an arbitrator's own determination of his authority.” Id. at 515.

 Arbitration “‘is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to

arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.’” Teamsters-Employer Local No.

945 Pension Fund v. Acme Sanitation Corp., 963 F. Supp. 340, 349 (D.N.J. 1997) (quoting

United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation, Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960)). 

Here, Waste Management has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of its

claim that it did not consent to the Resolution and thus cannot be forced to arbitrate according to

its terms, as opposed to arbitrating pursuant to the terms set forth in the Trust Agreement as it

existed at the time of Waste Management’s contributions to the Pension Fund or under the

2

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 28 Filed 09/27/10 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 528
Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act. Between July 1, 2004 and June 30, 2009, 1

several Waste Management hauling facilities were governed by a single collective bargaining

agreement (the “2004 CBA”) between Waste Management and the Teamsters Local Union No.

945 (the “Union”). Waste Management ceased making contributions to the Pension Fund under

that agreement in December 2008. Defendants now seek to arbitrate the issue of Waste

Management’s delinquent contributions according to the terms of the Resolution. 

Defendants contend that Waste Management consented to the terms of the Resolution by

signing remittance reports containing the following acknowledgment:

By payment of contributions, the Employer hereby acknowledges that it has a

collective bargaining agreement with Local 945 requiring these contributions and

accepts and agrees to be bound to the Agreements and Declarations of Trusts

Establishing the Teamsters-Employers Local 945 Pension Fund and/or the Local

945 I.B. of T. Welfare Fund, and any Amendments thereto, and all Rules and

Regulations adopted by the Trustees of said Funds.

See e.g., Davis Decl., Ex. H. The acknowledgment was followed by a line labeled “Authorized

Signature.” 

Waste Management did not sign or submit a remittance form to the Pension Fund after

December 2008, when it ceased making payments. Waste Management’s last submission of a

remittance form to the Pension Fund, thus, occurred fully six months before the Resolution was

adopted and made part of the Trust Agreement. Defendant cites no case law to support the

proposition that Waste Management, by signing a December 2008 remittance form, could have

 Waste Management’s application is limited to the imposition of temporary restraints on 1

the basis that it did not consent to arbitrate under the terms of the Resolution and does not extend

to the question of the arbitrability of the underlying dispute between the parties more generally.

3

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 28 Filed 09/27/10 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 529
agreed to an amendment to the Trust Agreement not yet in existence.

2

Because it appears that Waste Management did not enter into a valid agreement to

arbitrate according to the terms of the Resolution, the harm to Waste Management of being

forced to go forward with the September 29, 2010 arbitration is per se irreparable. See

PaineWebber, 921 F.2d at 515.

Therefore,

IT IS on this 27th day of September 2010, hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order enjoining the

scheduled September 29, 2010 arbitration is GRANTED; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants may seek a hearing on Plaintiff’s application

for a preliminary injunction within ten days of the entrance of this Order; and it is 

FURTHER ORDERED that this Order is limited to enjoining arbitration conducted

pursuant to the Resolution, and nothing in this Order should be read to prevent the parties from

proceeding to arbitration on their underlying dispute under the terms set forth in the Trust

Agreement or under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act.

/s/ Faith S. Hochberg 

Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.

 Defendants further argue that Waste Management consented to the terms of the 2

Resolution by signing remittance forms in making contributions to the Welfare Fund under the

2004 CBA and in making contributions under other collective bargaining agreements with the

Union. However, the acknowledgments contained in these remittance forms do not appear to

govern the relationship between the Pension Fund and Waste Management.

4

Case 2:10-cv-03984-FSH -PS Document 28 Filed 09/27/10 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 530