NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

:

MARK GIRESI, a member of IBT : CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1944 (MLC)

(Teamsters) Local # 177, :

:

Plaintiff, : O P I N I O N

:

v. :

:

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, :

:

Defendant. :

 :

THE PLAINTIFF, Mark Giresi, bringing this action to vacate

an arbitration award resolving a grievance brought on behalf of

Plaintiff by his union, IBT (Teamsters) Local # 177 (the

“Union”), in which the arbitrator found that Defendant, United

Parcel Service (“UPS”), had “just cause” for terminating

Plaintiff’s employment (dkt. entry no. 1, Rmv. Not., Ex. A,

Compl.); and UPS moving to dismiss the Complaint on the basis

that Plaintiff lacks standing to challenge the arbitration award

(dkt. entry no. 5, Mot. to Dismiss); and Plaintiff cross-moving

to vacate the arbitration award, relying on the Complaint in

support of the cross motion (dkt. entry no. 7, Mot. to Vacate);

and

IT APPEARING that where a collective bargaining agreement

(“CBA”) “mandates that the Union has exclusive power to enforce

the employees’ rights in dispute resolution, an individual

employee may not bring an action to vacate an arbitration award,”

Case 3:11-cv-01944-MLC-DEA Document 15 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 126
except “where the Union breached its duty of fair

representation,” Provo v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co., No. 10-

2374, 2010 WL 4225920, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 20, 2010); see also

Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186 (1967); Adams v. Crompton &

Knowles Corp., 587 F.Supp. 561, 562 (D.N.J. 1982); and

IT FURTHER APPEARING that (1) the CBA between UPS and the

Union provides that the multi-step grievance procedure set forth

therein “may be invoked only by authorized Union representatives”

(dkt. entry no. 5, Lario Cert., Ex. 2, CBA Art. 44 § 2 (emphasis

added)); (2) Plaintiff was not a party to the arbitration (Lario

Cert., Ex. 4, Arb. Op. and Award; Compl. at ¶ 26); and (3)

Plaintiff has made no allegation that the Union breached its duty

of fair representation (see generally Compl.); and

THE COURT considering the Plaintiff’s brief in opposition to

the motion (dkt. entry no. 13, Pl. Br.); and the Plaintiff

arguing, without citation to any controlling authority, that he

has standing to challenge the arbitration award because “a

union’s obligation or duty to provide representation to a member

ends with the arbitrator’s decision” (id. at 3); and the

Plaintiff relying on F.W. Woolworth Co. v. Misc. Warehousemen’s

Union, 629 F.2d 1204 (7th Cir. 1980); but the Court determining

that F.W. Woolworth Co. (1) is not binding on this Court, (2)

announced an exception to the rule that an individual employee

may not bring an action to challenge an arbitration award,

2

Case 3:11-cv-01944-MLC-DEA Document 15 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 127
holding that it would “allow[] employees to defend against a suit

[brought by an employer] seeking to vacate an arbitration award

favorable to the Union [and by extension, the employees] when the

Union chooses not to but otherwise acquiesces in the employees’

action,” see Martin v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 911 F.2d

1239, 1244 (7th Cir. 1990), and (3) is distinguishable here,

insofar as it observed that it did not involve “efforts by

individual employees to set aside the ultimate result of the

grievance procedure, namely the arbitration award,” as the

Plaintiff seeks to do here, 629 F.2d at 1210; and the Court

finding that the Plaintiff has presented no basis for this Court

to depart from the rule in Vaca, 386 U.S. at 186, and Adams, 587

F.Supp. at 562; and

THE COURT therefore concluding that Plaintiff lacks standing

to challenge the arbitration award; and the Court intending to

grant the motion and deny the cross motion; and the Court

deciding the motion and cross motion on the papers, see

Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); and for good cause appearing, the Court will

issue an appropriate order and judgment.

 s/ Mary L. Cooper 

MARY L. COOPER

United States District Judge

Dated: July 22, 2011

3

Case 3:11-cv-01944-MLC-DEA Document 15 Filed 07/22/11 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 128