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
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?