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

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ECF NO. 11 , GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ECF NO. 12 , AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD. Further, this case is ordered stricken from the Court's active docket. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 9/5/19. (mh)

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

Civ. Action No. 1:18-cv-132
(Kleeh)

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
Pending
judgment

before

filed

by

the

Court

are

the

Plaintiff

cross
and

motions

for

summary

Counter-Defendant,

The

Monongalia County Coal Company (“Plaintiff”), and the Defendants
and

Counter-Claimants,

the

United

Mine

Workers

of

America,

International Union, and the United Mine Workers of America,
Local
below,

Union
the

1702
Court

(“Defendants”).
grants

For

the

Plaintiff’s

reasons

motion

discussed

and

denies

Defendants’ motion.
I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff initiated this action under Section 301 of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, by filing a
Complaint to vacate an arbitration award. United States District

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
Judge Irene M. Keeley set a briefing schedule in this matter and
ordered the parties to file a joint stipulated record, cross
motions for summary judgment, and response briefs. The parties
have

submitted

summary

all

judgment

of

are

the

above,

ripe

for

and

the

cross

consideration.

motions

This

case

for
was

transferred to United States District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on
December 1, 2018.
BACKGROUND

II.

The complaint and the pending motions for summary judgment
stem from a grievance filed by a bargaining unit employee at the
Monongalia

County

conditions

for

Mine

bargaining

in

West

unit

Virginia.

employees

at

The
the

terms

and

Monongalia

County Mine are set forth in the 2016 National Bituminous Coal
Wage Agreement (“NBCWA” or the “agreement”). The NBCWA provides
the following regarding “Work Jurisdiction”:
The production of coal, including removal of
over-burden and coal waste, preparation,
processing
and
cleaning
of
coal
and
transportation of coal (except by waterway
or rail not owned by Employer), repair and
maintenance work normally performed at the
mine or at a central shop of the Employer
and maintenance of gob piles and mine roads,
and work of the type customarily related to
all of the above shall be performed by
classified Employees of the Employer covered
by and in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement.
Contracting,
subcontracting,
leasing and subleasing, and construction
2

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
work, as defined herein, will be conducted
in accordance with the provisions of this
Article.
Nothing in this section will be construed to
diminish
the
jurisdiction,
express
or
implied, of the United Mine Workers.
ECF No. 10-1 at 10–11.
The

agreement

Maintenance

Work

also
and

distinguishes

(2)

between

Construction

(1)

Work.

Id.

Repair
at

and

12–13.

Finally, the NBCWA provides the following regarding resolution
of disputes:
The United Mine Workers of America and the
Employers agree and affirm that, except as
provided herein, they will maintain the
integrity of this contract and that all
disputes and claims which are settled by
agreement shall be settled by the machinery
provided in the “Settlement of Disputes”
Article of this agreement . . . , it being
the purpose of this provision to provide for
the settlement of all such disputes and
claims
through
the
machinery
in
this
contract
and
by
collective
bargaining
agreement without recourse to the courts.
ECF No. 10-2 at 58. It further provides that “[e]xpenses and
fees incident to the service of an arbitrator shall be paid
equally

by

affected”

the

and

Employer

does

not

affected
comment

and

upon

by
other

the

costs

incurred by parties during arbitration. Id. at 55.

3

UMWA

district

potentially

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
Defendants,

through

the

grievant,

Tim

Gibson

(the

“Grievant”), alleged that Plaintiff “violated the terms of the
NBCWA by having contractors perform classified work, including,
but not limited to, unspooling, distributing and hanging hoses,
cables and data line on the monorail system in the Monongalia
County Mine . . . .” ECF No. 1 at ¶ 8. Defendants requested a
cease and desist order and 48 hours of double time paid to the
Grievant. Id.
Arbitrator Ralph H. Colflesh, Jr. (the “Arbitrator”) held a
hearing on April 27, 2018, and issued a decision on May 8, 2018.
Id. ¶¶ 9–10. The Arbitrator found that subcontracting took place
and that the subcontracting was prohibited by the NBCWA. ECF No.
1-1

at

12.

He

also

found

that

there

was

“no

actual

loss”

suffered by the Grievant. Id. at 8. Still, he wrote that he
“concur[s]

with

the

principle . . . that

in

general

every

sustained grievance must have some remedy.” Id. at 15. He wrote
that “the Union suffered a loss because its contractual work
jurisdiction

was

violated.”

Id.

The

Arbitrator

awarded

“the

Union its costs in preparing and presenting [the] grievance.”
Id. at 16.
Plaintiff argues that the award did not draw its essence
from the contract because monetary damages may only be imposed
4

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
to compensate for loss. Because the Arbitrator found that the
Grievant

suffered

punitive

in

compensatory

no

loss,

nature.
in

Plaintiff

Defendants

nature

and

that

argues,

argue
it

is

that

the

award

was

the

award

is

entitled

to

judicial

deference.
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 &
5

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
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,

951

In

addition,

exclusively
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). Notably, under Fourth Circuit precedent, compensation
for a loss of union work can be permissible. See Cannelton, 951
F.2d at 594 (writing that if the arbitrator “ordered monetary
damages to compensate employees for work they were entitled to

Gulf
Navigation
Co.,
363
U.S.
574
(1960);
and
United
Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564
(1960).
6

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
perform under the NBCWA, the award might reasonably be construed
as compensatory damages for a cognizable loss of union work”).
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

has

applied

“his

own

brand

of

industrial

justice.” Id. In such situations, a 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 Westinghouse v. IBEW, 561
F.2d 521, 523–24 (4th Cir. 1977) (noting that “[w]ith respect to
vacation
when

a

shutdowns,
breach

of

compensatory

the

bargaining

damages

may

agreement

be

awarded

causes

a

only

monetary

loss”); see also Baltimore Reg’l 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).
7

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
It is well-established that a “labor arbitrator’s source of
law is not confined to the express provisions of the contract,
as the industrial common law — the practices of the industry and
the

shop

—

is

equally

a

part

of

the

collective

bargaining

agreement although not expressed in it.” Gulf Navigation, 363
U.S. 574, 581–82 (1960). This includes past arbitral decisions.
Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Dist. 28, UMWA, 738 F.2d 998, 999 (4th
Cir. 1984). Further, the NBCWA expressly provides that “[a]ll
decisions of the Arbitration Review Board rendered prior to the
expiration of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of
1978

shall

continue

to

have

precedential

effect

under

this

Agreement to the extent that the basis for such decisions have
not been modified by subsequent changes in this Agreement.” ECF
No. 10-2 at 56.
IV.
This

Court

DISCUSSION

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,

certain aspects of the award weigh in favor of finding that the
award is compensatory. For instance, the Arbitrator wrote that
“the

Union

suffered

a

loss

because
8

its

contractual

work

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
jurisdiction was violated.” ECF No. 1-1 at 15. Other aspects of
the

award,

however,

weigh

in

favor

of

finding

that

it

is

punitive and does not draw its essence from the contract.
Importantly, the Arbitrator did not cite any calculations
of

the

amount

of

loss.

To

the

contrary,

the

Arbitrator

specifically found that the Grievant “suffered no actual loss.”
ECF No. 1-1 at 8. Without even minimal “actual loss” found to be
incurred by either the Grievant or the Union, a monetary award
of

any

monetary

amount

can

hardly

award

was

based

be
on

considered
the

costs

compensatory.

The

of

the

preparing

grievance, not on actual loss by Defendants that stemmed from
Plaintiff’s

breach.

Further,

the

Arbitrator

wrote

that

“in

general every sustained grievance must have some remedy.” Id. at
15. In discussing prior arbitral awards, he wrote that “there is
nothing . . . that prohibits damages in general for breaches of
the Agreement.” Id. at 14. This ideology flouts the principle
that monetary awards are valid only for compensatory purposes,
absent contract language authorizing punitive awards.
Defendants

compare

the

Arbitrator’s

award

to

the

award

issued in Bakery and Confectionary Workers Local 369 v. Cotton
Baking Co., 514 F.2d 1235 (5th Cir. 1975). The Court agrees that
some similarities exist. For instance, in Cotton Baking, the
9

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
arbitrator found that no laborer had actually lost work based on
the company’s assignment of work to a rival union. Id. at 1236.
Despite the fact that there was no work lost by any individual
laborers, the arbitrator determined that the union was damaged
by the denial of the work opportunity. Id. In citing this case,
however,

Defendants

ignored

an

important

distinction.

The

arbitrator in Cotton Baking awarded the union one year of wages
for a dock porter. Id. This calculation was based on actual lost
work by the union. The Arbitrator here, on the other hand, did
not calculate damages based on lost work. Instead, he awarded
the Union its costs in preparing the grievance.
Defendants cite a number of “awards in which the arbitrator
granted a compensatory award, despite the fact that no miner was
out of work when subcontracting occurred.” See ECF No. 11-1 at
19. The same distinction exists in those cases. See ECF No. 10-5
at 128–44 (awarding “a sum . . . equivalent to the straight-time
rate

for

the

time

attributable

to

the

hours

worked

by

the

contractors installing mechanical belt splices on October 18,
2015”); ECF No. 10-6 at 19–27 (finding that “two Grievants who
live closest to the mine portal shall each be paid two and onehalf (2-1/2) hours at the rate of time and one-half (1-1/2)”).

10

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
In

both

cases,

the

arbitrator

issued

an

award

based

on

a

calculation of work lost.
The

parties

do

not

dispute

that

Plaintiff

breached

the

NBCWA. Had the Arbitrator calculated Defendants’ loss based on
the

actual

breach,

the

award

could

possibly

be

upheld.

As

discussed above, compensating a Union based upon loss of Union
work

has

been

held

to

be

permissible

under

the

NBCWA.

See

Cannelton, 951 F.2d at 594. The Arbitrator did not, however,
take that approach. His award contained no supporting findings
of monetary loss to establish the award as compensatory, and it
did not find any basis in the language of the contract. Instead,
the

Arbitrator

chose

to

award

Defendants

their

costs

in

preparing the grievance. The monetary award issued did not stem
from the breach of the contract but, instead, stemmed from the
Arbitrator’s own sense of industrial justice.
V.
For

the

reasons

CONCLUSION

discussed

above,

the

Court

DENIES

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 11], GRANTS
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 12], VACATES
the arbitration award, and ORDERS this case STRICKEN from the
Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
11

MCCC V. UMWA

1:18-CV-132

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 11], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 12], AND VACATING ARBITRATION AWARD
The

Court

directs

the

Clerk

to

transmit

copies

of

this

Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record.
DATED: September 5, 2019

____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12