Aramark Facility Services v. Service Employees International Union
Filed June 16, 2008
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Cite as 06-56662

Arbitration Award Confirmed, Janitors Reinstated With Back Pay

Aramark Facility Services is a corporation that employs approximately 170,000 people in the United States, and its facilities management division provides labor for the Staples Center, a 19,000-seat sports and entertainment venue in downtown Los Angeles.

In early 2003, Aramark received a no-match letters from the Social Security Administration notifying them that the social security numbers and information of some 48 of its employees did not match the SSA’s database.

Aramark reacted to these “no-match” letters by asking its regional managers to confirm that the information it provided SSA matched the information provided by employees and, if so, to require corrective steps from the employees they supervised.

On April 15 and 16, 2003, instructions were relayed to 48 Aramark employees who were represented by Local 1877 of the Service Employees International Union. The instructions contained among others that the failure of the 48 employees to comply with the instruction would mean the end of their employment with Aramark Facility Services.

No employee was aware of the policy before receiving the mismatch letter. Believing the three-day turnaround time was too onerous, Service Employees International Union requested an extension, but Aramark denied this request.

Fifteen employees obtained the requested documentation in time and continued to work, while the other 33 employees failed to comply and thus were fired.

The fired workers were told that they would be rehired if they supplied the required documentation; nothing indicates when they received this information.

Thereafter, Service Employees International Union filed a grievance on behalf of the fired workers, contending the terminations were without just cause and thus in breach of the collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration was conducted to address this issue. Ultimately, the arbitrator ruled for Service Employees International Union and awarded the fired workers back pay and reinstatement, finding there was no convincing information that any of the fired workers were undocumented.

Aramark then filed a complaint in United States District Court to vacate the arbitration award. Service Employees International Union filed a counter-claim on the premise of having the arbitrator’s ruling confirmed.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and at a hearing held September 29, 2006, the district court ruled in favor of Aramark Facility Services.

The court reasoned that because the fired employees failed to indicate that they were beginning the process of correcting the SSN mismatch, Aramark had constructive notice that they were ineligible to work in the United States.

Therefore, the court held that the arbitrator’s award of reinstatement and back pay violated public policy because it would require Aramark to violate the immigration laws.

Service Employees International Union timely appealed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In reversing the ruling of the district court and confirming the arbitrator’s finding, the appellate court has these to say:

• Where Social Security Administration sent a letter to employer that indicated employer had reported information for some employees that did not match SSA’s database, the SSA letter, standing alone, did not constitute constructive notice that employer was employing undocumented workers.


• Accordingly, given the extremely short time that Aramark gave its employees to return with further documents and the arbitrator’s finding that Aramark had no “convincing information” of immigration violations, the employees’ failure to meet the deadline simply is not probative enough of their immigration status to indicate that public policy would be violated if they were reinstated and given backpay.

Therefore, the decision of the district court is reversed and the matter remanded with instruction to confirm the arbitration award.