United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc.

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER, Court finds that the grievances invoke the CBA and must be addressed pursuant to the procedure set forth therein; pla motion for s/j be sustained 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment by United Steel, Paper and Forestry, R ubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC; and the defendant's motion for s/j be overruled 15 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. ; and that dft arbitrate without delay the four grievances at issue in this matter (appended to the complaint as docket numbers 1-2,1-3,1-4 and 1-5; a judgment will be entered. Signed by Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr on 1/15/14.(SMT)cc: COR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY

NORTHERN DIVISION

ASHLAND

Civil Action No. 12-97-HRW
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY,
RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
AFL-CIO-CLC,
v.

PLAINTIFF,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

APPALACHIAN REGIONAL

HEALTHCARE, INC.,

DEFENDANT.

This matter is before the Court upon the parties' cross Motions for Summary Judgment
[Docket Nos. 14 and 15]. The motions have been fully briefed by the parties [Docket Nos. 16,
17, 19 and 20] and for the reasons stated herein the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc. ("ARH") operates ten hospitals, multi-

specialty physician practices, home health agencies, HomeCare Stores and retail pharmacies in
Eastern Kentucky and Southern West Virginia. Plaintiff, United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC ("Union") is the bargaining representative for certain employees at ARH's West
Liberty, Kentucky, South Williamson, Kentucky, and Hinton, West Virginia hospitals.
A.

The Collective Bargaining Agreement

The Union and ARH are parties to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") effective
from April 25, 2007 through March 31, 20 I 0 between the USW and Company governed the rates

agreement between the parties that the Beckley award has a preclusive effect or even a showing
of such an intention, ARH cannot plausibly support its argument.

Moreover, during the

hearing, ARH's counsel stated again and again that "nothing in this case, as far as I am
concerned, has any implication for any other pending grievance." Nothing was said at the
arbitration with regard to the Beckley grievance being dispositive. Such a statement would have
put all interested parties on notice and this lawsuit would never have been filed.

This is not to say that there is no logic to ARH's position. However, issue preclusion is
not a foregone conclusion in this context. As discussed herein, that is for the arbitrator to
determine.

IV.

CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the grievances invoke the CBA and must be addressed pursuant to

the procedure set forth therein. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs
Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket No. 14] be SUSTAINED and Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment [Docket No. 15] be OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that
Defendant arbitrate, without delay, the four grievances at issue in this matter (appended to the
Complaint as Docket Numbers 1-2, 1-3, 1-4 and 1-5). A Judgment will be entered
contemporaneously herewith.
This 15 th day of January, 2014.

9