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
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?