C.A. CURTZE CO. v. UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, DISTRICT UNION LOCAL ONE

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM ORDER indicating that upon consideration of Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, District Union Local One's Motion to Dismiss 10 and Brief in Support 11 , and Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition theret o 18 , it is hereby ordered that Defendant's Motion 10 is denied (details more fully stated in said Order); that the Court having denied Defendant's Motion 10 , Defendant shall file its Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint by 2/4/15. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 1/21/15. (jg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
C.A. CURTZE CO.,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
DISTRICT UNION LOCAL ONE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-227
Judge Nora Barry Fischer

MEMORANDUM ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of January, 2015, upon consideration of Defendant United Food
and Commercial Workers International Union, District Union Local One’s Motion to Dismiss,
(Docket No. [10]), and Brief in Support, (Docket No. [11]), and Plaintiff’s Brief in Opposition
thereto, (Docket No. [18]),
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion, (Docket No. [10]) is DENIED,
with prejudice, for the following reasons.
In its Brief in Support of the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant argues that this matter should
be dismissed and resolved in arbitration, as the parties agreed to same in their Agreement, which
is filed as Exhibit “A” to the Complaint at Docket No. 1-1. (Docket No. 11 at 8-17). Plaintiff
disagrees, and contends that the Complaint was properly filed with this Court. (Docket No. 18 at
2-19).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit limits judicial review of an
agreement to arbitrate to two threshold questions: (1) Did the parties seeking or resisting
arbitration enter into a valid arbitration agreement?; and (2) Does the dispute between those
parties fall with the language of the arbitration agreement? CardioNet, Inc. v. Cigna Health
1

Corp., 751 F.3d 165, 172 (3d. Cir. 2014) (quoting John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Olick, 151
F.3d 132, 137 (3d. Cir. 1998) (quotations omitted)).
Upon its review of the Agreement in this case, the parties’ arguments, and the pertinent
case law, in this Court’s estimation, the parties did not agree to arbitrate this dispute. In support
of same, the Court finds the following cases controlling: Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370
U.S. 238 (1962); Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Cement, Lime, Gypsum, & Allied Workers Div.,
Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, Blacksmiths, Iron Ship Builders, Forgers & Helpers, 849 F.2d 820
(3d Cir. 1988); and Affiliated Food Distributors, Inc. v. Local 229, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, 483 F.2d 418 (3d Cir. 1973). As the Third Circuit summarized in Lehigh Portland
Cement:
[W]hen a contract contains no language which explicitly
contemplates or permits the employer to initiate arbitration
procedures, and the grievance structure is designed solely to afford
the union the right to arbitrate, we have held that an employer,
despite the presence of arbitration procedures in the collective
bargaining agreement, is not bound to assert its claims before an
arbitrator. Rather, we have permitted the employer to bring its
claim against the union in the district court. Affiliated Food
Distributors, Inc. v. Local 229, International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, 483 F.2d 418 (3d Cir. 1973); Boeing, 370 F.2d at 971.
Lehigh Portland Cement, 849 F.2d at 822.
Accordingly, the Court having denied Defendant’s Motion, (Docket No. [10]), Defendant
shall file its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint by February 4, 2015.
s/ Nora Barry Fischer
Nora Barry Fischer
United States District Judge
cc/ecf: All counsel of record.

2