## Facts

- Verizon and the union were parties to a long-running collective bargaining relationship governed by a CBA containing a grievance-arbitration procedure.
- The CBA’s work-assignment clause stated the company would maintain its “established policies as to the assignment of work” connected to installation and maintenance of the company’s communications facilities.
- After Verizon began offering FiOS TV, set-top boxes initially were (a) delivered and installed by union service technicians or (b) picked up by customers for self-installation.
- In 2007 Verizon added a third option: shipment of set-top boxes to customers by common carrier for customer self-installation.
- The union grieved in 2008, claiming common-carrier delivery changed an established work-assignment practice and violated the CBA.
- A tripartite arbitration board issued a 2016 merits award directing Verizon to stop delivering set-top boxes to customers “by anyone other than a member of the Union,” while retaining jurisdiction over monetary relief.
- After the parties failed to agree on a remedy, the board issued a supplemental remedy award awarding backpay and defining the scope of compensable work, including categories of deliveries and self-installations.
- Verizon stopped common-carrier deliveries in Pennsylvania and created a new “Assistant Technician” position to perform deliveries for customer self-installation.
- Verizon sued under LMRA § 301 to vacate the awards; the union counterclaimed to confirm them; both sought summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the merits and remedy awards drew their essence from the CBA and therefore had to be enforced under the deferential standard for labor-arbitration review.
2. Whether the board, after issuing the merits award, violated functus officio by expanding liability in the remedy award, or permissibly clarified and implemented the merits award under retained remedial jurisdiction.
3. Whether the remedy award exceeded arbitral authority by awarding damages for categories of work not covered by the merits award and/or by imposing punitive or non-compensatory monetary relief.
4. Whether Verizon’s post-award creation of an “Assistant Technician” position affected the enforceability or proper scope of remedies.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part each side’s summary judgment motion.
- The court confirmed the merits award’s liability determination as a plausible interpretation of the CBA’s “established policies” work-assignment provision.
- The court vacated the remedy award in part and remanded to the arbitration board for a new calculation of remedies.
- The court held the remedy must be confined to the categories of work actually determined to violate the CBA in the merits award and must be compensatory rather than punitive.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of labor-arbitration awards under LMRA § 301 is highly deferential; an award is enforceable if it is arguably based on the arbitrator’s interpretation of the CBA and “draws its essence” from the agreement.
- Arbitrators’ authority is bounded by the parties’ submission and the CBA; a court may vacate an award that reflects an impermissible modification of contractual obligations rather than contract interpretation.
- Under functus officio, once arbitrators finally decide an issue they generally may not revisit it, though they may correct clerical errors and clarify or implement an award where jurisdiction over remedies is retained.
- A remedial award may not expand liability beyond the merits determination; monetary relief must be tied to make-whole, compensatory purposes unless the CBA authorizes broader relief.
- A remedy that functions as punitive or speculative damages, or that compensates for work outside the merits award’s scope, exceeds arbitral authority and is subject to vacatur and remand for recalculation.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the arbitration board’s contract-based liability finding that Verizon’s use of common carriers for certain set-top-box deliveries violated the CBA, but vacated and remanded the remedy because it extended beyond the merits award and included non-compensatory elements not authorized by the parties’ agreement.


Verizon Pa. LLC v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., AFL-CIO, Loc. 13000, No. 18-394, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54595 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2020)