Southwest Florida Area Local, American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service
Filing
46
OPINION AND ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendation; granting 29 Respondent's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; denying 32 Petitioner's Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; and denying 1 Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award. See Opinion and Order for details. The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and deadlines as moot and close the file. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 3/2/2015. (MAW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
SOUTHWEST
FLORIDA
LOCAL,
AMERICAN
WORKERS UNION,
AREA
POSTAL
Petitioner,
v.
Case No: 2:14-cv-75-FtM-29DNF
UNITED
SERVICE,
STATES
POSTAL
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on consideration of United
States
Magistrate
Judge
Douglas
N.
Frazier’s
Report
and
Recommendation (Doc. #41), filed January 14, 2015, recommending
(1) that Respondent United States Postal Service’s Motion for
Judgment
on
the
Pleadings
(Doc.
#29)
be
granted;
(2)
that
Petitioner Southwest Florida Area Local, American Postal Workers
Union’s Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #32) be
denied; and (3) that Petitioner's Petition to Confirm Arbitration
Award (Doc. #1) be dismissed.
Petitioner filed an Objection (Doc.
#42) on January 28, 2015 to which Respondent filed a Response (Doc.
#45) on February 20, 2015.
I.
This matter stems from Respondent the United States Postal
Service’s (the Postal Service) decision in the summer of 2000 to
assign the “prepping” of certain flat mail at the Fort Myers postal
facility to the National Postal Mail Handlers Union (the Mail
Handlers) instead of to Petitioner the Southwest Florida Area
Local, American Postal Workers Union (the Union).
The Union
opposed that decision and, pursuant to a contractual arbitration
process, sought a determination that the Union, not the Mail
Handlers,
were
entitled
to
the
prepping
work.
The
Union
prevailed, and arbitrator Edward E. Hales (the Arbitrator) issued
an award (the Award) holding that the work assignment should have
been to the Union and granting the Union employees back pay.
#1-3.)
(Doc.
The Award did not determine the amount of monetary relief
owed to the Union employees or specify the method for calculating
back pay.
(Id.)
Instead, the Arbitrator remanded those matters
to be resolved in a future Article 15 grievance proceeding pursuant
to the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.1
(Id.)
On February 11, 2014, prior to the completion of the Article
15 process on remand, the Union filed its Petition to Confirm the
Award (the Petition).
(Doc. #1.)
On October 15, 2014, the Postal
Service moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the
Petition must be denied because the Award is not “final and
1
The grievance procedure is commonly referred to as an Article 15
Proceeding because the particulars of the grievance process are
set forth in Article 15 of the parties’ collective bargaining
agreement. (Doc. #1-2, p. 87.)
- 2 -
binding,” and, therefore, cannot be confirmed by a federal court.
In response, the Union filed its own motion for judgment on the
pleadings,
arguing
confirmable.
that
the
Award
is
final,
binding,
and
On January 15, 2015, the Magistrate Judge determined
that the Award was not “final and binding” because the Arbitrator
remanded the case for an Article 15 proceeding to determine the
amount of back pay owed to the Union.
As a result, the Magistrate
Judge concluded that the Award may not be enforced by a federal
court and recommended that the Postal Service’s motion for judgment
on the pleadings be granted.
II.
After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings
and recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or modify
the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation.
28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); United States v. Powell, 628 F.3d 1254, 1256 (11th Cir.
2010).
A district judge “shall make a de novo determination of
those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations
636(b)(1)(C).
to
which
objection
is
made.”
28
U.S.C.
§
See also United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d
1181, 1184 n.1 (11th Cir. 2009).
This requires that the district
judge “give fresh consideration to those issues to which specific
objection has been made by a party.”
Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of
Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting H.R.
1609, 94th Cong., § 2 (1976)).
The district judge reviews legal
- 3 -
conclusions de novo, even in the absence of an objection.
See
Cooper-Houston v. Southern Ry. Co., 37 F.3d 603, 604 (11th Cir.
1994).
III.
Federal courts have the power to confirm or vacate labor
arbitration awards that are final and binding.
& H. v. Riss & Co., 372 U.S. 517, 519 (1963).
Gen. Drivers, W.
“As a general rule
an arbitration award requiring reinstatement and back pay, but
leaving the calculation of the amount of back pay to the parties,
is considered final and enforceable.
If the parties cannot agree
on the amount of back pay, however, the normal course of action is
to treat the award as ambiguous or incomplete and remand the
dispute to the original arbitrator to clarify the award.”
United
Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv.
Workers Int'l Union AFL-CIO-CLC v. Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.,
479 F. App'x 250, 254 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting Aluminum, Brick &
Glass Workers Int'l Union v. AAA Plumbing Pottery Corp., 991 F.2d
1545,
1549
(11th
Cir.
1993)).
Thus,
where
the
arbitrator
specifies the means for calculating back pay and, as a result, the
amount can be derived via a simple mathematical calculation, an
arbitration award is final and confirmable even if the arbitrator
declined to do the calculation himself or herself.
Id.
However,
where an arbitrator “simply award[s] back pay in the abstract” and
- 4 -
leaves open issues that must be decided before back pay can be
calculated, the award is not final and confirmable.
Id.
Here, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, there are open issues
that must be resolved before the Union’s damages can be calculated.
(Doc. #41, pp. 8-11.)
For example, the Award notes that, in 2005,
new technology was introduced that impacted the method by which
prepping work was performed.
(Doc. #1-3, p. 11.)
The Mail
Handlers argued that even if the Postal Service was wrong to assign
them the prepping work in 2000, it was permitted to assign them
the prepping work in 2005 due to operational changes resulting
from the new technology.2
Ultimately,
the
(Id.)
Arbitrator
The Union argued to the contrary.
declined
to
decide
this
issue,
concluding that because the Union’s underlying grievance was filed
following the Postal Service’s decision in 2000, he was tasked
with determining only whether the Postal Service’s decision in
2000 was proper.
(Id.)
However, whether the Postal Service could
have assigned the prepping work to the Mail Handlers in 2005 must
2
Elsewhere in the Award, the Arbitrator recognized that an
“operational change” (as defined in the parties’ collective
bargaining agreement) could allow the Postal Service to assign the
prepping work to the Mail Handlers instead of the Union. (Doc.
#22, p. 13.)
- 5 -
be resolved before damages can be calculated because it directly
impacts the amount of time for which the Union is owed back pay.
As a result, determining the amount of back pay owed to the
Union undoubtedly requires much more than the ministerial act of
performing
mathematical
calculations.
For
that
reason,
the
Arbitrator chose to remand the case to an Article 15 Proceeding to
resolve the factual issues necessary to determine the proper
implementation of back pay.
Therefore, the Court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge that, on its face, the Award is not final and
confirmable.
Accordingly, the Postal Service is entitled to
judgment on the pleadings and the Union’s Petition to Confirm
Arbitration Award (Doc. #1) is denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
1.
The
Report
and
Recommendation
(Doc.
#41)
is
hereby
ADOPTED and the findings INCORPORATED herein.
2.
Respondent United States Postal Service’s Motion for
Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #29) is GRANTED.
3.
Petitioner Southwest Florida Area Local, American Postal
Workers Union’s Cross Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
#32) is DENIED.
4.
Petitioner Southwest Florida Area Local, American Postal
Workers Union’s Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award (Doc. #1) is
DENIED.
- 6 -
5.
The
Clerk
shall
terminate
all
pending
motions
and
deadlines as moot, and close the file.
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
March, 2015.
Copies:
Hon. Douglas N. Frazier
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of Record
- 7 -
2nd
day of
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?