General Drivers, Warehousemen, and Helpers, Local Union No. 89 v. Irving Materials, Inc.

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION AND ORDER by Senior Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 6/17/14 that the Plaintiff's(Unions) motion for summary judgment is DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant's (Companys) motion for summary judgment is SUSTAINED and the Unions claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.This is a final order. cc:counsel (TG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00569-H

GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN )
& HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 89 )

PLAINTIFF

V.
IRVING MATERIALS INCORPORATED

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This case arises under the Labor-Management Relations Act (29 U.S.C. §§ 141 et seq.)
(the “Act”). Plaintiff here is the General Drivers Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 89
(the “Union”). The Union represents certain former employees of Irving Materials Incorporated
(the “Company”). The employees had participated in a strike and the Company then replaced
them. The Union filed a grievance on their behalf alleging a violation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement between the Union and the Company (the “Agreement”), specifically that
the Company denied these employees pay after they were called to attend a safety meeting. The
Company denied that grievance on the grounds that the Agreement does not require it to arbitrate
complaints of former non-active employees.
The question at hand then concerns not whether these employees were actually called to a
meeting and are entitled to compensation, which the parties dispute, but rather whether the Union
is entitled to grieve any issue on behalf of these particular former employees. This is entirely a
matter of interpreting the Agreement.
The Company need only arbitrate those matters that it has specifically agreed to do so in
an agreement. The Company has cited a number of provisions within the Agreement which

strongly suggest that it applies only to “those employed by the Company.” The Court agrees
with the Company’s view. Looking at the Agreement as a whole, the most reasonable
interpretation is that the arbitration provisions exist for the benefit of current active employees
only. Of course, the Agreement could contain an exception under which former employees or
replaced strikers were permitted certain rights. However, the Union has not cited any such
exception and the Court cannot find one.
The Union has cited several cases in support of its right to arbitrate for these former
employees. However, neither of these cases is persuasive here as they involve either rehired
employees or those specifically provided rights under a relevant new contract. Therefore, after
having reviewed the matter carefully, the Court finds the Agreement’s language and intent quite
clear on this issue.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Union’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Company’s motion for summary judgment is
SUSTAINED and the Union’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a final order.

June 17, 2014

cc:

Counsel of Record