1199seiu United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs.

597 F.Supp.3d 557

1199SEIU UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS EAST, Petitioner,

v.PSC COMMUNITY SERVICES, et al., Respondents.

20-cv-3611 (JGK)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed April 7, 2022

James Michael Reif, Gladstein, Reif, Meginniss, Kimberly Lehmann, Laureve Daniele Blackstone, Levy Ratner, P.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.

Michael Patrick Collins, Mallory Campbell, Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, New York, NY, for Respondent PSC Community Services.

James Joseph Sawczyn, Patrick G. Brady, Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., Michael D. Thompson, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP/Newark, Newark, NJ, for Respondent New Partners, Inc.

Philip K. Davidoff, FordHarrison LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Stella Orton Home Care Agency, Richmond Home Needs, Sunnyside Home Care Project, Sunnyside Citywide Home Care.

Philip K. Davidoff, Andrew Williamson, Jeffrey Alan Shooman, FordHarrison LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Family Home Care of Brooklyn and Queens, Care at Home.

Kenneth Harold Kirschner, David Justin Baron, Hogan Lovells US LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Chinese-American Planning Council Home Attendant Program, United Jewish Council of the East Side Home Attendant Service Corp.

Douglas Joseph Klein, Felice B. Ekelman, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Christopher Michael Repole, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondent The First Chinese Presbyterian Community Affairs Home Attendant Corp.

Christopher Michael Repole, Douglas Joseph Klein, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Eric Philip Simon, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Azor Home Care, Bushwick Stuyvesant Heights Home Attendant, Inc., CABS Homecare, Riverspring Licensed Homecare Services Agency, Inc., St. Nicholas Human Supports Corp., Wartburg.

Christopher Michael Repole, Felice B. Ekelman, Ryan Christopher Chapoteau, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Alliance for Health, Inc., AccentCare of NY, Inc.

Ira David Wincott, Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC, New Hyde Park, NY, Lisa Marie Griffith, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Melville, NY, for Respondent Region Care, Inc.

Richard Jay Reibstein, Locke Lord LLP, New York, NY, for Respondent Special Touch Home Care Services, Inc.

Robert F. Milman, Milman Labuda Law Roup PLLC, New York, NY, for Respondent RAIN, Inc.

Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., River Edge, NJ, Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., Shannon Danielle Azzaro, Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents Prestige Home Care, Inc., Prestige Home Attendant, Inc., Personal Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc.

James E. McGrath, III, Rebecca Kim Kimura, Putney Twombly Hall & Hirson LLP, New York, NY, for Respondents Priority Home Services, Premier Home Health Care, Inc.

Gregory R. Begg, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., River Edge, NJ, Lauren Rayner Davis, Peckar & Abramson, P.C., New York, NY, for Respondents ABC Health Services Registry, Personal Touch LI, Personal Touch WC.

OPINION AND ORDER

JOHN G. KOELTL, District Judge:

The present motions concern an award rendered in an arbitration pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (the "LMRA") involving the petitioner, 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the "Union") and the respondents, a group of home care agencies. In the award, the arbitrator determined that the respondents had committed various wages and hours laws violations with respect to over 100,000 of the respondents’ current and former Union member-employees. The arbitrator ordered the respondents to create and contribute to a compensation fund of approximately $30 million (the "Fund"). The Union, which prosecuted the arbitration on behalf of its current and former members, opted not to take any attorney's fees from the Fund.

Twelve former employees of certain respondents (the "Movants"), seven of whom were expressly excluded from the award, now seek a preliminary injunction that would prevent the parties from complying with the award, setting up the Fund, and using the Fund to compensate claimants for the respondents’ wages and hours violations. The Movants also seek to dismiss the Union's petition to confirm the award (the "Petition," ECF No. 183). None of the respondents have opposed the Petition or confirmation of the award.

Although the Movants purport to bring their motion on behalf of themselves and a relatively small group of former Union members, none of the Movants are named plaintiffs of any certified class of former Union members. The Movants seek to stop enforcement of the award with respect to all current and former Union members, arguing that the Movants and those that they purport to represent would be irreparably harmed if the arbitration award proceeded.

For the following reasons, the Movants’ motions to dismiss and for a preliminary injunction are denied .

I

The Court assumes familiarity with the Court's prior opinion in this action, which confirmed an earlier jurisdictional award of the arbitrator and denied motions of former employees of certain respondents to intervene and to dismiss the Union's petition or to stay confirmation of that award. See 1199SEIU United Healthcare Workers E. v. PSC Cmty. Servs., 520 F. Supp. 3d 588 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) (the " Confirmation Order"). The facts relevant to resolving the Movants’ motions are set forth below and constitute the Court's findings of fact.

The Union is a labor union that serves as the sole and exclusive representative for the respondents’ home health aide employees, including for purposes of collective bargaining over the terms and conditions of their employment. Confirmation Order, 520 F. Supp. 3d at 594. The respondents are licensed home care agencies. Id. At all relevant times, the Union was a party to collective bargaining agreements ("CBAs") with all the respondents. Id. at 594-95. In or about 2015, the Union signed a memorandum of agreement (the "2015 MOA") with the respondents that amended the CBAs. Id. at 595. The 2015 MOA laid out an alternative dispute resolution process through which all claims arising under the New York Labor Law, the New York Home Care Worker Wage Parity Law, and the Fair Labor Standards Act (collectively, the "Covered Statutes") must be resolved. Id. at 595-96. Specifically, the 2015 MOA required that "all claims brought by either the Union or Employees" for violations of any Covered Statute must first go through a grievance procedure or mediation and, if not resolved through the grievance procedure or mediation, must be submitted to "final and binding arbitration." Id. ¹

On January 2, 2019, the Union filed a class action grievance against the respondents on behalf of the Union's home care members "concerning violations of the CBAs regarding wage and hour claims arising under the Covered Statutes." Confirmation Order, 520 F. Supp. 3d at 596. Certain parties then participated in a mediation pursuant to the 2015 MOA. On December 24, 2019, the arbitrator declared that the mediation had concluded and directed the parties to submit briefs addressing the issues of (1) whether the claims of former and current Union members were arbitrable; and (2) whether the arbitrator had jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims "irrespective of whether employees’ employment terminated prior to the effective date of the" 2015 MOA. Id. at 597.

The arbitrator resolved these questions in an award dated April 17, 2020 (the "First Award"). In relevant part, the arbitrator determined that the claims of former and current Union members were arbitrable and that the arbitrator had jurisdiction to adjudicate those claims even if former employees had ceased their employment before the Union entered the 2015 MOA. See Confirmation Order, 520 F. Supp. 3d at 597. However, the arbitrator expressly excluded from the First Award eight former employees of certain respondents whose employment had ceased before the 2015 MOA was executed because state or federal courts had previously concluded that those former employees could not be compelled to arbitrate their claims. Id. The Union filed its petition to confirm the First Award in this Court on May 8, 2020.

The Court granted that petition in the Confirmation Order and denied motions of former employees of certain respondents to dismiss the Union's petition or stay confirmation of the First Award. In the Confirmation Order, the Court concluded that this group of former employees, which included several of the Movants, lacked standing to challenge the First Award because they were not parties to the arbitration and because they did not claim that the Union had breached any duties or engaged in any other malfeasance. Id. at 598-99. The Court also denied these movants’ motions to intervene for the purposes of challenging the First Award, concluding that any purported interest that they had in opposing confirmation of the First Award was "too contingent or remote to be cognizable under Rule 24." Id. at 600. The former employees filed an appeal of the Confirmation Order with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and that appeal remains pending. Following the Confirmation Order, the Union and the respondents proceeded to litigate the merits of the Union's grievance before the arbitrator.

The arbitrator issued the second award resolving the merits of the Union's wages and hours claims on February 25, 2022 (the "Second Award," ECF No. 183-1, together with the First Award, the "Awards").² See Petition ¶ 24. In the Second Award, the arbitrator determined that the respondents violated the Covered Statutes during relevant time periods. Id. ¶¶ 28-29. The arbitrator ordered a per capita contribution remedy to compensate the respondents’ current and former employees for these violations. Id. ¶ 30. The arbitrator explained that he arrived at the per capita contribution remedy after considering several submissions, including employee affidavits and the respondents’ financial records, along with other factors including the financial stability of the home care industry. Id. ¶ 31. The...