Complete 6 pages APA formatted article: Supreme Court Ruling on 14 Penn Plaza V. Pyett.

Complete 6 pages APA formatted article: Supreme Court Ruling on 14 Penn Plaza V. Pyett. The agreement between the Union and RAB is contained in a Collective Bargaining Agreement for Contractors and Building Owners. Under the present CBA, union members are required to submit all claims that involve employment discrimination to a binding arbitration following the procedure for grievance and dispute resolution embodied also in the CBA.

The petitioners, in this case, are 14 Penn Plaza LLC and Temco Service Industries, Inc., both members of the RAB. The respondents, on the other hand, are workers in New York’s building service industry and are members of the Union. 114 Penn Plaza owns and operates the New York City office building where the respondents worked as night lobby watchmen and other similar capacities. The respondents were directly employed by petitioner Temco Service Industries, Inc., a maintenance service, and cleaning contractor.

14 Penn Plaza, with the Union’s consent, engaged a unionized security contractor affiliated with Temco to provide licensed security guards for the building, Temco reassigned respondents to jobs as porters and cleaners. The respondents felt that these reassignments amounted to a loss in income and other damages, and were less desirable than their former positions. They, therefore, asked the Union to file grievances alleging that 14 Penn Plaza and Temco violated the CBA’s ban on workplace discrimination. They contended that they were discriminated against on the basis of their age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

At first, the Union requested for arbitration under the CBA but withdrew after the initial hearing because it (the Union) consented to the new security contract, so it could not now claim that it objects to the respondents’ reassignments for being discriminatory.&nbsp.