## Facts

- Pierre Roy, an oboist employed by the Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Society, Inc. (BPO), was terminated in 2012 after repeated complaints from other musicians about disruptive conduct.
- Roy’s union, Musicians Association of Buffalo New York Local No. 92, filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and pursued arbitration.
- The arbitrator upheld two warning letters and found BPO had “just cause” to terminate Roy, but awarded Roy one year of back pay.
- The arbitrator credited testimony from the maestro and multiple musicians that Roy deliberately played below his ability to sabotage colleagues and engaged in disruptive behavior.
- Roy sought to vacate the award, claiming arbitrator misconduct (evidentiary rulings), excess of contractual authority, irrational credibility findings, and a violation of public policy; he also alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation in how it handled the arbitration.
- After removal to federal court under LMRA § 301, the district court confirmed the award, denied vacatur, and dismissed the fair-representation claim; Roy appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the arbitration award should be vacated based on alleged arbitrator misconduct, excess of authority under the CBA, improper credibility determinations, or violation of public policy.
2. Whether the union breached its duty of fair representation in a manner that seriously undermined the integrity of the arbitral process, permitting Roy to attack the final and binding award in a hybrid LMRA § 301 action.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The court held Roy failed to establish any ground to vacate the arbitration award, including misconduct, excess of powers, corruption, or a public-policy violation.
- The court held Roy failed to plead or prove that the union’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and thus could not bypass the finality of the arbitration award in a hybrid § 301/fair-representation claim.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of labor-arbitration awards is highly deferential; vacatur for misconduct requires a showing that the alleged conduct deprived a party of a fundamentally fair hearing.
- If an arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the CBA, a court will not vacate the award based on disagreement with the arbitrator’s interpretation or factfinding.
- Credibility determinations are for the arbitrator; disagreement with witness weighing does not establish corruption, fraud, or evident partiality.
- The public-policy exception to enforcement is narrow and requires conflict with an explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy grounded in law.
- In a hybrid LMRA § 301/duty-of-fair-representation case, the employee must show both an employer breach of the CBA and a union breach of the duty of fair representation that seriously undermined the integrity of the arbitration.
- A union breaches its duty only when its conduct is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith; strategic or advocacy choices, even if arguably mistaken or negligent, generally do not meet that standard.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit confirmed the labor-arbitration award sustaining Roy’s discharge for just cause and rejected his attempt to set it aside because he failed to show an unfair arbitration process or a duty-of-fair-representation breach that would allow him to challenge a final and binding award.


Roy v. Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra Soc’y, Inc., 682 F. App’x 42 (2d Cir. 2017)