Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—S.D. Ohio: Arbitration award ordering employer to cease requiring ‘double duty’ enforced, (Aug 19, 2025)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

The union, which did not ask the court to adopt its interpretation of the arbitration award, sought only an order that the employer to comply with it.

A union was entitled to summary judgment affirming an arbitration award in its favor in a dispute with an employer as to whether it could require employees to perform “double duty,” ruled a federal district court in Ohio. After analyzing the “flexibility and efficiency” language in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator found that its plain meaning did not allow “double duty.” The arbitrator also rejected the employer’s argument that other contract language permitting reassignments supported “double duty.” Because union was simply seeking to confirm prospective relief that it had already litigated and obtained from the arbitrator, the court ordered the employer to comply with the arbitration award (United Steelworkers v. Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01213 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 14, 2025)).

The employer and the union are parties to a collective bargaining agreement covering employees at an Owens Corning facility. The agreement has a grievance and arbitration procedure. The agreement also includes an addendum on “flexibility and efficiency.” This addendum states that “bargaining unit employees may assist other employees and perform duties in other classifications within their departments or in other departments in which they are capable” and that “employees will continue to perform their assigned classification for the majority of time.”

“Double duty”. The union and employer have a “longstanding” disagreement over whether the employer could require employees to perform “double duty,” where an “employee takes on the full duties of a second job while also performing their own underlying job duties.” The parties took this dispute to arbitration pursuant to the grievance and arbitration process.

An arbitrator found that the plain language of the addendum does not allow for “double duty.” The arbitrator rejected the employer’s argument based on other contract language permitting reassignments. The award upheld the union’s grievance, stating that the employer “violated the ‘Flexibility and Efficiency’ language in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement by requiring and directing employees to perform ‘double duty.’” The award directed the employer “to immediately cease and desist from requiring or compelling employees to perform ‘double duty.’”

“Check sheets”. However, the award did not end the disagreement over double duty. After the award, the employer instituted “check sheets” for employees to track the duties performed on each shift and ensure that no double duty occurred. However, the union asserted that the employer continued to require employees to perform double duty. It then filed numerous grievances about the double duty issue.

The union brought this lawsuit to enforce the arbitration award. The union moved for summary judgment. The employer opposed the motion and filed its own motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. In its motion, the employer argued that the union failed to exhaust the grievance process and that the union’s interpretation of the award is unenforceable.

Michigan Family standard. The union sought to enforce the arbitration award under the LMRA. Federal courts conduct only a limited review of labor arbitration awards. An award is legitimate “so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement” rather than reflecting the arbitrator’s “own brand of industrial justice.” A court may not overturn an arbitrator’s award “as long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract” and acting within his or her authority.

The Sixth Circuit set forth a three-part test to determine whether a labor arbitration award “draws its essence from the contract” and therefore must be enforced, Michigan Fam. Res., Inc. v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union Loc. 517M, 475 F.3d 746, 752-53 (6th Cir. 2007). Further, the Sixth Circuit has made clear that "[a]n arbitrator has broad discretion in formulating remedies, AKSteel Corp. v. United Steelworkers of Am., 163 F.3d 403, 409 (6th Cir. 1998).

Here, there was no dispute that the arbitration award satisfied the Michigan Family Resources three-part test. First, the arbitrator acted within the scope of his authority; there is no dispute that the CBA committed the grievance to arbitration before this arbitrator. Second, there is no indication that the arbitrator committed fraud, had a conflict of interest, or acted dishonestly. Finally, the arbitrator’s opinion “has all the hallmarks of interpretation.”

The arbitrator analyzed the “flexibility and efficiency” language and found that its plain meaning did not allow “double duty.” The arbitrator also found that other language in the contract, such as provisions allowing reassignments, did not change his interpretation. According to the arbitrator, there was never an agreement based on the contract language at issue to allow for so-called “double duty.”

Conversion to judgment. The court concluded that it need not determine whether the employer violated the arbitration award to enforce it by ordering compliance with the award’s directive. The union’s request that the court to declare the award final and binding and order the employer to comply with the award’s prospective relief, was simply a request to enforce the award by converting it to a judgment.

Because the union did not seek a remedy beyond the injunctive relief found in the arbitration award, the court must “neither determine whether there was a violation of the Agreement nor fashion a remedy.”

Requested relief. Here, the arbitration award’s cease and desist order does not define the prohibited conduct in reference to the prior violations. And the union sought nothing more than an order requiring the employer to comply with the award’s order. This is a request to enforce an award containing prospective relief, not a request to enforce prospectively a prior award.

The relief requested here does not require the court to apply the award prospectively to a later dispute. “The union is simply seeking to confirm prospective relief that it has already litigated and obtained from the arbitrator.”

Accordingly, the court granted the union’s motion for summary judgment confirming the arbitration award.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-01213.

Judge: Marbley, A.

Attorneys: Cassandra M. Maas for United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC and United Steelworkers Local 244M. Terrence J. Miglio (Butzel Long) for Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC.

Companies: United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC; United Steelworkers Local 244M; Owens Corning Insulating Systems, LLC

Cases: Labor Arbitration ContractClaims UnionsMembers Procedure OhioNews