Armstrong County Memorial Hospital v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, et al.
In 1992, Armstrong Country Memorial Hospital (Hospital) implemented a non-smoking policy that allowed for limited smoking in its psychiatric unit, as well as in designated smoking areas outside the hospital buildings and for employees in their personal vehicles on hospital property. Several years later, hospital administrators adopted a Tobacco Free Campus Policy ("TFC Policy"), which prohibited smoking anywhere on hospital property, including in private vehicles, subject to strict discipline. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union and its local branch (collectively, "Union") filed a grievance stating that the policy violated the Union's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Hospital. The dispute proceeded to binding arbitration, which found that the TFC Policy was invalid insofar as the past Hospital policy of providing limited smoking areas had created the "expectation" of a "protected local working condition" for smokers. On appeal, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania vacated the decision, finding that the arbitrator's determination had violated the plain language of the CBA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third District affirmed the District Court's decision, noting that under specific language of the CBA, reasonable management rights, including the right to implement the TFC Policy, were not limited by existing or past practices.
Armstrong County Memorial Hospital v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, et al., No. 10-2495 (3d Cir. 2011).
Some jurisdictions allow an individual or organization to initiate an action against another private party who is not following a particular law. For example, a person may sue a restaurant that allows smoking despite a smoke free law. If the plaintiff is claiming the violation of the law caused physical harm, this may also be a personal injury case.
Measures to reduce or eliminate exposure to tobacco smoke.
(See FCTC Art. 8)
Substantive Issues
None
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"Thus the arbitrator's opinion effectively rewrote the parties' agreement to state that (1) a past or existing practice affecting employees creates a "protected local working environment" and (2) any policy unilaterally adopted by the Hospital which eliminates a "protected local working condition" could not be considered reasonable´ under Article 4. Although we are aware that the scope of our review of a labor arbitration award is "very narrow," (Garvey, 532 U.S. at 509), we find that this interpretation - directly contrary to the plain meaning of Section 4.05 and premised entirely on a term that is never used in the agreement - is so untethered from and contrary to the language of Article 4 that we cannot say the arbitrator was even "arguably construing" the agreement."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
In 1992, Armstrong Country Memorial Hospital (Hospital) implemented a non-smoking policy that allowed for limited smoking in its psychiatric unit, as well as in designated smoking areas outside the hospital buildings and for employees in their personal vehicles on hospital property. Several years later, hospital administrators adopted a Tobacco Free Campus Policy ("TFC Policy"), which prohibited smoking anywhere on hospital property, including in private vehicles, subject to strict discipline. The United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union and its local branch (collectively, "Union") filed a grievance stating that the policy violated the Union's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Hospital. The dispute proceeded to binding arbitration, which found that the TFC Policy was invalid insofar as the past Hospital policy of providing limited smoking areas had created the "expectation" of a "protected local working condition" for smokers. On appeal, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania vacated the decision, finding that the arbitrator's determination had violated the plain language of the CBA. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third District affirmed the District Court's decision, noting that under specific language of the CBA, reasonable management rights, including the right to implement the TFC Policy, were not limited by existing or past practices.