The Monongalia County Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, International Union et al

Filing 19

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR. This matter is remanded to the arbitrator for clarification of the basis for monetary award granted to the Defendants. Defendants are ordered to provide the Clerk of Court with the address of Arbitrator Jacquelin Drucker. It is further ORDERED that this action be, and it hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the docket. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 3/22/19. (Copy held in Clerk's office until address of Arbitrator Jacquelin Drucker is provided to the Clerk of Court by the Defendants. (mh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
THE MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-46
(Judge Kleeh)

UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
INTERNATIONAL UNION, and
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL UNION 1702,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The

this

Monongalia

action

County

pursuant

to

Coal

Section

Company
301

of

(“Plaintiff”)
the

Labor

brought

Management

Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, against the United Mine Workers
of America, International Union, and the United Mine Workers of
America, Local Union 1702 (collectively, “Defendants”), moving
to vacate an arbitration award. This matter comes before the
Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The
motions have been fully briefed and are now ripe for review. For
the reasons set forth below, this Court will remand the case to
the arbitrator for clarification regarding the award.
II.

BACKGROUND
The collective bargaining agreement governing this dispute

is

the

National

Bituminous

Coal

Wage

Agreement

of

2011

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
(“NBCWA”). ECF No. 13-1. The NBCWA establishes work jurisdiction
of

union-represented

employees

and

provides

restrictions

on

Plaintiff’s ability to contract out this work. Id. at 16–21.
Article XXIII of the NBCWA provides a procedure for the final
and binding resolution of disputes that may arise regarding the
application

of

the

NBCWA’s

provisions.

Id.

at

305–14.

The

parties may settle the dispute themselves or they may submit the
dispute to a binding arbitration. Id.
This

dispute

involves

work

performed

at

the

Monongalia

County Mine in Wana, West Virginia, on (1) April 2, 3, and 4,
2016, and (2) April 8, 2016. ECF No. 13-3 at 6, 10. On these
dates, Plaintiff used non-bargaining unit personnel to assemble
a longwall mining unit. Id. Tim Gibson, a member of Local 9909,
filed two grievances, alleging that Plaintiff violated the terms
of the NBCWA because Plaintiff hired contractors to perform work
reserved for union members. Id.
The parties could not come to a resolution, so the two
grievances

were

consolidated

for

a

hearing

before

Arbitrator

Jacquelin Drucker. ECF No. 13-2. Drucker categorized the work
performed as “of the type customarily related” to the production
of coal and, therefore, bargaining unit work. Id. at 14. She
found that Plaintiff violated Article 1A, Section (a), of the
NBCWA. Id. She ordered that Plaintiff “cease and desist from
2

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
contracting for this work” and awarded that the grievant “be
made whole through compensation equivalent to the straight-time
rate

for

time

attributable

to

the

hours

worked

by

the

contractor” on the dates in question. Id. at 15. Plaintiff is
not challenging the arbitrator’s finding of a violation; it is
challenging only the award. ECF No. 14-1 at 9 n.6.
III. GOVERNING LAW
This Court may review labor arbitrators’ decisions under
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29
U.S.C. § 185, but this power of review is “extremely limited.”
Cannelton Indus., Inc. v. Dist. 17, UMWA, 951 F.2d 591, 593 (4th
Cir. 1991) (citing United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise
Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960)). This is because “[t]he
parties to a collective bargaining agreement bargained for the
arbitrator’s

interpretation,

and

‘so

far

as

the

arbitrator’s

decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have
no business overruling him because their interpretation . . . is
different from his.’” Island Creek Coal Co. v. Dist. 28, UMWA,
29 F.3d 126, 129 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Enterprise Wheel, 363
U.S. at 599). The Supreme Court of the United States, in the
“Steelworkers

Trilogy,” 1

has

“emphasized

1

that

federal

courts

The Steelworkers Trilogy includes the following cases: United Steelworkers
of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960); United
Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574

3

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
should refuse to review the merits of an arbitration award under
a collective bargaining agreement.” Mutual Mining, Inc. v. Dist.
17, UMWA, 47 F.3d 1165, at *2 (4th Cir. 1995) (unpublished).
Both an arbitrator’s findings of fact and interpretation of the
law are accorded great deference. Upshur Coals Corp. v. UMWA,
Dist.

31,

selection

933
of

arbitrator’s

F.2d

225,

remedies
domain.”

229

is

(1991).

almost

Cannelton,

In

addition,

exclusively

951

F.2d

at

“[t]he

within

593–54

the

(citing

United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, 484 U.S. 29 (1987)).
Still, there are some limitations on arbitration awards.
The award “must draw its essence from the contract and cannot
simply

reflect

the

arbitrator’s

own

notions

of

industrial

justice.” Misco, 484 U.S. at 38. In addition, an arbitrator may
not

“impose

a

punitive

award

or

punitive

damages”

unless

a

provision in the collective bargaining agreement provides for
them. Island Creek, 29 F.3d at 129 (citing Cannelton, 951 F.2d
at 594). In deciding whether an award is punitive or whether it
draws its essence from the agreement, courts should be mindful
that arbitrators “need not give their reasons for an award,” but
courts may rely on arbitrators’ reasoning to determine whether
the

arbitrator

justice.”

has

Cannelton,

applied
951

F.2d

“his
at

own
594.

brand
In

such

of

industrial

situations,

a

(1960); and United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564
(1960).

4

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
court may vacate an award or remand for clarification. Id. In
reviewing arbitration awards, courts “must be concerned not to
broaden the scope of judicial review of arbitration decisions
nor to lengthen a process that is intended to resolve labor
disputes quickly.” Id. at 595.
Because punitive awards are invalid, the Fourth Circuit has
upheld district court decisions vacating awards when no evidence
of monetary loss was produced. See, e.g., Westinghouse v. IBEW,
561

F.2d

respect

521,
to

523–24

vacation

(4th

Cir.

shutdowns,

1977)

(noting

compensatory

that

damages

“[w]ith
may

be

awarded only when a breach of the bargaining agreement causes a
monetary

loss”);

Baltimore

Regional

Joint

Bd.

v.

Webster

Clothes, 596 F.2d 95, 98 (4th Cir. 1979) (concluding that there
had

been

no

showing

of

actual

damages,

and,

therefore,

the

arbitrator had issued a punitive award).
The
remanded

Fourth
when

Circuit

the

basis

has
of

also
an

found

award

that

is

cases

unclear.

should
See,

be

e.g.,

Cannelton, 951 F.2d at 595 (finding that it was unclear whether
an award was issued for a notice violation or a contracting
violation

and,

therefore,

remanding

for

clarification).

The

United States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia

has

also

remanded

cases

for

clarification

when

an

arbitrator provided no evidence that an award was compensatory.
5

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
In Eastern v. UMWA, during a vacation shutdown of the plant,
Eastern hired outside contractors to perform work. No. 2:040641, 2006 WL 2819537, at *1 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 28, 2006). The
union

filed

reserved

a

for

grievance
its

after

members

concluding

under

the

that

the

collective

work

was

bargaining

agreement. Id. The arbitrator held for the union, finding there
was

a

violation

arbitration

of

award,

the
the

agreement.

arbitrator

Id.

wrote

At

the

that

end

“the

of

the

union

is

entitled to be compensated for the amount of the time that the
outside contractor spent tearing out the concrete and removing
it from beneath the 437 belt.” Id.
The
finding

arbitrator
of

a

filed

violation,

extensive
but

only

reasoning

one

to

sentence

support

his

addressed

the

remedy. Id. at *2. Eastern filed a lawsuit, asking the court to
vacate the award (challenging only the remedy, not the finding
of a violation). Id. at *1. It contended that the remedy was
punitive because no employee suffered an actual loss. Id. The
court wrote that “[u]nder the unusual circumstances presented
here,

where

the

issue

of

damages

is

practically

left

open

without discussion, Cannelton teaches by analogy that remand is
the best course.” Id. at *10. It then upheld the finding of a
violation but remanded the case for consideration of damages,
noting

that

“[r]emand

[would]

allow
6

(1)

the

arbitrator

to

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
illuminate the basis for his unliquidated monetary award, and
(2)

then

permit

the

court

to

discharge

its

limited

review

function if a further challenge is made.” Id.
The United States District Court for the Northern District
of West Virginia took a very similar approach in McElroy v.
UMWA. In McElroy, as in Eastern, the remedy was one sentence as
well: “McElroy is ordered to pay the local union the reasonable
value of the sixteen man-hours involved in changing the No. 13
belt.” No. 5:07cv41, 2009 WL 367699, at *5 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 10,
2009). Upon reconsideration of the case, the court found the
analysis in Eastern persuasive and relevant in deciding whether
the award was compensatory or punitive in nature. Id. Therefore,
the court remanded the case to the arbitrator for clarification
regarding the basis for the monetary award. Id. at 6.
IV.

ANALYSIS
A.

The Parties’ Contentions
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.
14]

Plaintiff
arbitration

admits

awards

that
but

deference

believes

should

the

be

given

arbitrator

to

ignored

precedent, ignored contractual language, and used her own notion
of equity and fairness to come to a decision. Plaintiff believes
there are no damages because the grievant was not reasonably
available

to

do

the

work

in

question.
7

At

the

arbitration

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
hearing, the grievant conceded that he worked regular shifts and
overtime during the days at issue, yet the grievant alleges that
he lost 58 hours and 30 minutes of work. Plaintiff argues that
the award was a windfall to the grievant. Money damages may only
be awarded to remedy a proven loss, which, Plaintiff argues,
does not exist here. Defendants produced no evidence of loss, so
the award, Plaintiff argues, is punitive in nature.
2.
In

Defendants’ Response [ECF No. 17]

response,

Defendants

contend

that

at

the

hearing,

Defendants offered evidence of several awards where compensatory
damages

were

awarded

even

though

no

miner

was

out

of

work.

Defendants also argue that “loss” can mean different things. For
example, work given to outside contractors is lost forever for
the bargaining unit, and this also affects the bargaining unit
members’

job

security.

Defendants

argue

that

the

award

is

consistent with the common law of the industry. There is no
contractual requirement, they argue, that Defendants demonstrate
that there were union workers available to perform the work in
question.

Furthermore,

the

arbitration

award

is

entitled

to

judicial deference.
3.

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No.
15]

Defendants argue that under the Steelworkers Trilogy, great
deference

should

be

given

to

arbitration
8

awards.

In

these

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
proceedings, Defendants argue, they need only prove that the
work in question was bargaining work; they need not prove that
the grievant was not working at the time the work was contracted
out. Plaintiff had an ample supply of union labor at all times.
Contracting

out

hurts

the

job

security

of

bargaining

unit

members, so arbitrators appropriately provide monetary damages
to

compensate

for

breaches.

At

the

arbitration

hearing,

Defendants submitted several awards as precedent for situations
in

which

company

a

compensatory

argued

that

no

award

was

miner

was

granted
out

even

of

though

the

when

the

work

subcontracting occurred. An arbitrator has implicit authority,
Defendants argue, to specify the appropriate remedy for a breach
of the agreement. In summary, Defendants believe the award is
wholly consistent with the NBCWA and draws its essence from it.
4.
In
defer

to

its

Plaintiff’s Response [ECF No. 16]
response,

arbitration

Plaintiff
awards.

recognizes

However,

that

courts

must

Plaintiff

points

out,

arbitrators do not have unfettered discretion. Awards must still
draw their essence from the agreement and cannot simply reflect
an

arbitrator’s

own

notions

of

industrial

justice.

Binding

precedent provides that money damages may only be awarded under
the NBCWA to a grievant who can establish he suffered a proven
loss.

Here,

it

has

not

been

established
9

that

the

grievant

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
suffered any monetary loss. Defendants, Plaintiff argues, rely
on nonbinding cases with different factual scenarios.
B.

Review of the Arbitrator’s Award

This

Court

recognizes

its

limited

role

in

deciding

arbitration disputes. However, under Fourth Circuit precedent,
it is clear that a lack of evidence of monetary loss will render
an award non-compensatory and, therefore, punitive. Here, the
issue of damages is practically without discussion in Arbitrator
Jacquelin

Drucker’s

award.

As

in

Eastern

and

the

McElroy,

arbitrator’s award includes only one sentence about the remedy.
The arbitrator orders “compensation equivalent to the straighttime

rate

for

time

attributable

to

the

hours

worked

by

the

contractor.” ECF No. 13-2 at 15.
It

is

considered

unclear
in

what,

issuing

this

if

any,

evidence

remedy.

The

the

award

arbitrator

contained

no

supporting findings of monetary loss to establish the award as
compensatory

rather

than

punitive.

Furthermore,

Defendants

do

not argue that they provided evidence of loss at the arbitration
hearing. Rather, they argue that they submitted precedent that
the

court

should

arbitration

awards

follow
for

(cases

unions

even

in

which

when

the

courts

upheld

grievants

were

working during the time period in question). When the basis of a
monetary award is unclear, both the Fourth Circuit and federal
10

MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL CO. V. UMWA

1:18-CV-46

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ARBITRATOR
district courts in West Virginia have remanded for clarification
from

the

arbitrator.

As

Judge

Copenhaver

astutely

noted

in

Eastern, “where the issue of damages is practically left open
without discussion, Cannelton teaches by analogy that remand is
the best course.” 2006 WL 2819537, at *10. This Court now finds
the same.
V.

CONCLUSION
The Court hereby ORDERS that this case be REMANDED to the

arbitrator for clarification of the basis for the monetary award
granted to Defendants. Defendants are ORDERED to provide the
Clerk of this Court with the address of Arbitrator Jacquelin
Drucker.

It

is

further

ORDERED

that

this

action

be,

and

it

hereby is, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the
docket.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this memorandum
opinion

and

order

to

counsel

of

record

and

to

Arbitrator

Jacquelin Drucker at the address to be provided by Defendants.
DATED: March 22, 2019

/s/ Thomas S. Kleeh
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11