Intl Assn of Machinists v. DynCorp International LLC

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-03987-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999837283].. [16-1023, 16-1041]

Appeal: 16-1023

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1023

DISTRICT LODGE 4 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
AND
AEROSPACE
WORKERS,
an
unincorporated
labor
organization; LOCAL LODGE 24 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, an unincorporated labor
organization,
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-1041

DISTRICT LODGE 4 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS
AND
AEROSPACE
WORKERS,
an
unincorporated
labor
organization; LOCAL LODGE 24 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, an unincorporated labor
organization,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Delaware corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (8:14-cv-03987-JFM)

Appeal: 16-1023

Argued:

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 6

May 10, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: J. Michael McGuire, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL LLP, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Andrew Dean Roth,
BREDHOFF
&
KAISER,
P.L.L.C.,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
ON
BRIEF:
Elizabeth
TorphyDonzella, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
Devki K. Virk, BREDHOFF & KAISER,
P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 16-1023

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
These cross-appeals arise from a dispute over the proper
interpretation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement
(CBA) between the parties, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers,
Local Lodge 24, and International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 4 (the Unions), and DefendantAppellant/Cross-Appellee

DynCorp

International

LLC.

When

the

Unions sued DynCorp to compel arbitration of a union officer’s
grievance
arbitration
attorney’s

over

his

but
fees

termination,

denied
as

a

the

the

Unions’

sanction

for

district
motion

for

DynCorp’s

court
an

ordered
award

alleged

of

lack

of

justification for its resistance to arbitration.
The cardinal facts are undisputed.

DynCorp, a government

military contractor, terminated the employment of Gregg French,
an officer of the local union, after French responded as follows
to

an

Air

Force

Contract

Officer

Technical

Representative’s

request for an overdue report: “We will shit you something.” *
According

to

the

Unions,

necessary paperwork.

that

phrase

refers

to

generating

Thereafter, the Air Force Contract Officer

*

French does not dispute saying something to this effect,
but he does contend that he made this remark to a fellow DynCorp
employee, not to the Air Force Contract Officer Technical
Representative, as a means of informing his colleague that the
requested paperwork needed to be produced.

3

Appeal: 16-1023

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 4 of 6

overseeing the contract on which French was working requested
French’s removal from the contract.

DynCorp acceded to that

request and terminated French’s employment.
Although the CBA between the parties generally provided for
arbitration

of

most

workplace

employment

disputes

involving

union members, the CBA contained what the parties have referred
to as a “carve out” from the broad arbitration provision.
relevant here, the “carve out” provision provides as follows:
Section 7 - Security Regulations
(A)
The parties to this Agreement hereby recognize
the Company’s obligations in its contracts with the
Government
pertaining
to
security,
security
clearances, and access to Government-managed property,
and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement is
intended to place the Company in violation of its
contracts
and/or
security
agreements
with
the
Government.
(B)
In the event that the U.S. Military Service or
other Government Agency duly concerned with security
regulations
or
operations
on
Government-managed
property, advises the Company that any employee in the
Union bargaining unit is restricted from access to
Government-managed property, or restricted from work
on or access to classified information and material,
the Union agrees that such action as the Company may
take pursuant to its contractual and/or security
obligations to the Government will not be contested,
nor will such action be a subject of the grievance
procedure contained in Article III of this Agreement.
(C)
In the event that such Government Agency
following the taking of such action within one year
advises the Company that such an employee is no longer
restricted from access to Government-managed property
or restricted from work on or access to classified
information and material, the Company shall promptly
reinstate the employee with seniority, to the same job
4

As

Appeal: 16-1023

Doc: 41

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 5 of 6

classification held at the time such action was taken,
subject to the applicable seniority provisions of the
Agreement,
if
he/she
promptly
applies
for
such
reinstatement within fifteen (15) days.
J.A. 56.

DynCorp refused to arbitrate the French grievance,

based essentially

on

its

theory

that,

because

the

Air

Force

Contract Officer requested French’s removal in accordance with
the

government’s

French’s
“carve

rights

termination

out.”

The

under

fell

Dyncorp’s

within

Unions

the

argued,

government-contract,

scope

to

the

of

the

Section

contrary,

that

7

the

“carve out” was limited to adverse employment actions that touch
or concern particularized security issues of importance to the
government and that French’s termination did not fall within
such parameters.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and
the district court agreed with the Union’s construction of the
CBA.

The

court

further

concluded,

however,

that

DynCorp’s

resistance to arbitration under Section 7 was not so barren of
legally

plausible

interpretive

arguments

arbitrate amounted to bad faith.

that

the

refusal

to

Cf. United Food & Commercial

Workers, Local 400 v. Marvel Poultry Co., 876 F.2d 346, 351 (4th
Cir. 1989) (observing that, regarding requests for attorney’s
fees,

challenges

sufficiently

to

‘justified’

arbitrability

“must

.

there

.

.

unless

reasonably arguable legal support for them”).

5

be
is

considered
literally

no

Accordingly, the

Appeal: 16-1023

Doc: 41

district

court

Filed: 05/31/2016

denied

the

Pg: 6 of 6

Unions’

request

for

an

award

of

attorney’s fees in seeking to compel arbitration.
Having had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument,
and having fully considered the parties’ contentions, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. Int’l Ass’n of
Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 24 v. Dyncorp Int’l
LLC, No. 8:14-cv-03987-JFM,

2015

WL

9302377

(D.

Md.

Dec.

2,

2015).
AFFIRMED

6