NEW ENTERPRISE STONE & LIME CO., INC. v. TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMAN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 110
Filing
34
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26 ) and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23 ) and for the re asons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26 ) is DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23 ) is GRANTED, and as more fully stated in said Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge Kim R. Gibson on 9/10/2019. (dlg)
'
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT!
I
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVA~IA
!
NEW ENTERPRISE STONE & LIME CO., )
INC.,
)
Case No. 3:18~cv-4
)
Plaintiff,
)
JUDGE KIM R. GIBSON
)
v.
)
)
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS,
LOCAL UNION NO. 110,
)
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
I.
Introduction
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff New Enterprise Stone & Lime Company, Inc.'s
("NESL") Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) and Defendant Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. llO's (the "Union") Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23). These motions have
been fully briefed and are ripe for disposition. (See ECF Nos. 24, 25, 27, 28, 30-33.)
This case arises from a dispute over the arbitrability of a grievance filed by Charles Frye
(the "Frye Grievance"), who was an employee of Plaintiff and represented by Defendant. In
short, Frye sought to take his grievance over vacation pay entitlement to arbitration under the
terms of the collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA"). The present case ensued when Plaintiff
filed its Complaint in this Court seeking a declaratory judgment that th~ Frye Grievance is not
arbitrable.
For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary J4dgment (ECF No. 26) is
I
'
DENIED, and Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or
ili the Alternative Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
II.
Jurisdiction and Venue
The Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
because this is an action against a labor organization under the Labor Management Relations Act
of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 141 et. seq. (See ECF No. 11[1[ 7-13; ECF No. 7 'Il'Il 7-13.) Venue is proper in
the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), (c), under which venue is
proper in any district court in the United States having jurisdiction of the parties.
III.
Procedural History
Plaintiff initiated this lawsuit by filing the Complaint on January 4, 2018. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the Frye Grievance is not arbitrable and that Plaintiff
has no obligation to arbitrate the Frye grievance under the CBA. (Id. i'H 43-49.) Plaintiff also
seeks to enjoin Defendant from proceeding in arbitration on any issues concerning the Frye
Grievance. (Id. 'H'H 50-54.)
In response, Defendant filed an Answer on March 4, 2018, asking the Court to deny
Plaintiff's requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and bringing a counterclaim against
Plaintiff to compel arbitration.
(ECF No. 7 'H'H 54-62.)
Plaintiff filed an Answer to the
Counterclaim on March 4, 2018. (ECF No. 8.)
Defendant filed this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative Motion
for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23) on September 30, 2018. Plaintiff filed its Motion for
I
-2-
Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) the next day on October 1, 2018. Tiie briefing and responses
!
on these motions concluded on October 31, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 24, 25, 27, 28, 30-33.)
IV.
Factual History
The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. 1
Plaintiff and Defendant have been parties to several, successive collective bargaining
agreements covering NESL employees at its Roaring Spring, Blair County, Pennsylvania facilities,
including Charles Frye. (ECF No. 1
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?