Blamowski v. Munson Transp., Inc., 91 N.Y.2d 193 (1997)

An arbitration award may be vacated if proper notice of intention to arbitrate was not served, the objecting party did not participate in the arbitration, and the agreement to arbitrate was not complied with.

Summary

Blamowski, a truck driver, was terminated after a drug test. His union filed for arbitration nine months after the denial of his grievance. Munson refused to participate, arguing the collective bargaining agreement was no longer binding because Blamowski was the only union member. The arbitrator ruled in Blamowski’s favor. The New York Court of Appeals held the arbitration award was properly vacated because Munson wasn’t properly served with a notice of intention to arbitrate under CPLR 7503(c), Munson didn’t participate in the arbitration, and Blamowski failed to comply with the agreement’s timeline for submitting to arbitration.

Facts

Blamowski, a truck driver for Munson Transportation, was part of a small bargaining unit represented by Local 375. By April 1992, he was the only member. After a positive drug test, Munson terminated Blamowski. He filed a grievance, which was denied. The NLRB dismissed an unfair labor practice charge, stating that an employer is not required to bargain with a unit permanently consisting of only one employee.

Procedural History

Blamowski and Local 375 demanded arbitration nine months after the grievance denial. Munson refused to participate. The arbitrator ruled in favor of Blamowski. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Munson was not bound to arbitrate. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

Issue(s)

Whether the arbitration award should be vacated because (1) proper notice of intention to arbitrate was not served on Munson, (2) Munson did not participate in the arbitration proceeding, and (3) Blamowski did not comply with the agreement to arbitrate.

Holding

Yes, because (1) the notice of arbitration did not contain the requisite language of CPLR 7503(c); (2) Munson’s actions demonstrated nonparticipation in the arbitration; and (3) Blamowski failed to submit the grievance to arbitration within the time frame specified in the collective bargaining agreement.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court focused on three main reasons for vacating the arbitration award. First, the Court found that the notice of intention to arbitrate was deficient because it did not include the specific language required by CPLR 7503(c), which states that the served party has 20 days to apply for a stay of arbitration, or they will be precluded from objecting to the validity of the agreement or asserting a time bar. The court noted, “A party may serve upon another party a demand for arbitration or a notice of intention to arbitrate, specifying the agreement pursuant to which arbitration is sought and the name and address of the party serving the notice * * * and stating that unless the party served applies to stay the arbitration within twenty days after such service he shall thereafter be precluded from objecting that a valid agreement was not made or has not been complied with and from asserting in court the bar of a limitation of time” (CPLR 7503 [c]). Because this language was missing, Munson wasn’t properly served.

Second, the Court determined that Munson did not participate in the arbitration. Munson did not attend hearings, select an arbitrator, or pay fees. The Court distinguished between communicating objections to the arbitration and actually participating in it, finding the former insufficient for participation.

Third, the Court held that Blamowski did not comply with the arbitration agreement because he submitted the grievance nine months after the employer’s denial, far exceeding the five-day limit specified in the agreement. The Court emphasized strict compliance with the procedural requirements of the arbitration agreement. Because all three conditions were met, the arbitration award was properly vacated under CPLR 7511(b)(2).