District Lodge 4, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers et al v. DynCorp International, LLC

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge J. Frederick Motz on 12/2/2015. (nd2s, Deputy Clerk)

.. .
•
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 24, ETC.

v.
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC

*

*
*
*
*
*
*

Civil No. - JFM-14-3987

*
******
MEMORANDUM

Local Lodge 24, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers has
brought this action seeking to compel DynCorp International, LLC to arbitrate a dispute arising
from the termination of the employment of Gregg French. The material facts are undisputed, and
each side has filed a motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff's motion will be granted and

defendant's motion will be denied.
The employment of French was terminated as the result of French saying to an Air Force
Contract Officer Technical Representative that "we will shit you something" in connection with
a "Dropped Object Report" that was due. According to plaintiff, that phrase refers to generating
necessary paperwork. Thereafter, the contracting officer of the Government on the contract with
the Government on which French was working requested the removal of French from the
contract.!
It is undisputed that labor disputes are generally arbitrable under the Collective
Bargaining Agreement here. Defendant contends, however, that Article I, Section 7 of the

1 Immaterial but interesting is the fact that the contracting officer's request apparently was in
response to a solicitation made by defendant. Also immaterial but interesting is the fact that
French apparently had been involved in union activities for some period of time.

1

Collective Bargaining Agreement between plaintiff and defendant creates an exception to the
general rule. That section provides in pertinent part 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 Governmentmanaged 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
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.
Defendant contends that this Section, by referring to defendant's contractural and security
obligation, renders the dispute concerning French nonarbitrable.

Defendant buttresses this

argument by citing a provision in the Government's Performance Work Statement that states that
the Government contracting officer "may direct the contractor to remove an employee( s) from
assignment under this contract for reasons of security or misconduct."
I find that Article I, Section 7 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement pertains only to an
employee's security status. The section is titled "Security Regulations."

As pointed out by

defendant, the section does refer to defendant's "contractural and/or security obligations to the
Government."

However, this provision can reasonably be read as referring to defendant's free

standing security obligations and obligations it undertook pursuant to its contract with the
2

•
Government. Likewise, although the contract between defendant and the Government referred to
misconduct as well as "reasons of security," defendant was not free to modify its obligations
under the Collective Bargaining Agreement by entering into a separate agreement with the
Government.2
Plaintiff seeks to recover its attorneys' fees from defendant. That request is denied. The
issue presented is sufficiently close that defendant justifiably declined to arbitrate its dispute with
French on the ground that the contracting officer had requested his removal from the contract.
A separate order effecting the rulings made in this memorandum is being entered
herewith.

Date:

December 2, 2015

_________

~.~f ~!n.d'~O"--"._-~-.
•.•.

Although the record is silent o~ the point, it ap~~ars that defendant could have met his
obligations both under the Coll~tr~el.Jgar~afuing Agreement and its contract with the
Government. Specifically, it pir~s~kl:jJY(6ililll:ihave removed French from the contract but
continued to keep him on J:fs!JlllYJ"RU, ~!1d9W;>W.4JY, would have cut into to defendant's profit
this
but any unnecessary expense that defendall~\V~~lI'equired to pay was caused by the fact that it
entered into two different:contl-actftMt:arguapb:,(yvere inconsistent with one another.
2

1<;00']

JJII:i1Sio"~s:n~'

o:,nu

'3

.