Teamsters Local Union 480 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc.
| Decision Date | 04 April 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 12–6253.,12–6253. |
| Citation | 748 F.3d 281 |
| Parties | TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 480, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant–Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
ARGUED: Lesley Cook, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Lesley Cook, Samuel Morris, Godwin, Morris, Laurenzi & Bloomfield, P.C., Memphis, Tennessee, for Appellant. Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.
Before: BOGGS, CLAY, and GILMAN, Circuit Judges.
BOGGS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GILMAN, J., joined. CLAY, J. (pp. 291–95), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.
Teamsters Local Union 480 (“Union”) sought a declaratory judgment in federal district court to enforce a settlement agreement with United Parcel Service, Inc. (“UPS”). The Union and UPS had formed the agreement in June 2010 to resolve a labor dispute between them. According to the Union, UPS did not comply with the agreement. UPS maintained that any complaint about UPS's failure to abide by the agreement fell within a broad arbitration clause in the parties' collective-bargaining agreement (“CBA”) and was thus subject to arbitration. The district court agreed and dismissed the Union's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Although we conclude that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction, for the reasons given below, we affirm the district court's dismissal of the Union's complaint, based on the language of the CBA.
UPS is an international package-delivery company that provides transportation, logistics, and financial services. The Union is the certified bargaining representative for certain UPS employees. The parties do not dispute these facts. UPS employs a class of workers known as “shifters,” who drive semi-tractor trailers at a UPS facility as part of the loading-dock operation. Appellee's Br. 7.
The Union and UPS are parties to a CBA consisting of two documents: (1) the National Master United Parcel Service Agreement (“Master Agreement”), effective from December 19, 2007 through July 31, 2013; and (2) the Teamsters Southern Region and United Parcel Service Supplemental Agreement to the National Master United Parcel Service Agreement (“Supplemental Agreement”), effective from the date of ratification through July 31, 2013.
The CBA provides elaborate grievance procedures that the Union and UPS must invoke to resolve disputes between them. Under article 7 of the Master Agreement, “[a]uthorized representatives of the Union may file grievances alleging violations of this Agreement, under local grievance procedures, or as provided herein.” Article 8, addressing “National Grievance Procedure,” provides, in pertinent part:
All grievances and/or questions of interpretation arising under the provisions of this National Master Agreement shall be resolved [in accordance with the following provisions].
...
All grievances and/or questions arising under the provisions of this National Master Agreement shall be submitted to the grievance procedure for determination.
...
The Union and Employer may under [Section 3] review and reverse, if necessary, decisions by any area, regional or local grievance committee which interprets Master language erroneously.
...
The decision of the National Grievance Committee shall be final and binding. The National Grievance Committee shall determine whether a decision submitted to it raises an issue of interpretation of Master Agreement language.
...
Where the National Grievance Committee fails to reach a majority decision as to any case submitted pursuant to this Article (excepting arbitrator decisions) either party shall have the right to refer the case to binding arbitration.
...
Any grievance that does not raise an issue of interpretation of a Master Agreement Article or Section shall be resolved pursuant to the provisions relating to the local, state and area grievance procedures set forth in the applicable Supplements, Riders and Addenda.
...
The arbitrator shall have the authority to apply the provisions of this Agreement and to render a decision on any grievance coming before him/her ... Any grievance that does not raise an issue of interpretation of a Master Agreement Article or Section shall be resolved pursuant to the provisions relating to the local, state and area grievance procedures set forth in the applicable Supplements, Riders and Addenda.
The Supplemental Agreement—which contains key language for this case—further details the grievance procedures the parties must follow for dispute resolution. Article 51, titled “Grievance,” provides, in pertinent part:
...
A grievance is hereby jointly defined to be any controversy, complaint, misunderstanding or dispute arising as to interpretation, application or observance of any of the provisions of this Agreement.
...
In the event of any grievance, complaint, or dispute it shall be handled in the following manner:
1. The employee shall report it to the employee's shop steward in writing within five (5) working days. The steward shall attempt to adjust the matter with the supervisor within forty-eight (48) hours.
2. Failing to agree, the shop steward shall promptly report the matter to the Union, which shall submit it in writing and attempt to adjust the same with the Employer within fifteen (15) days.
3. If the parties fail to reach a decision or agree upon a settlement in the matter in any Local Union area, it shall be submitted within fifteen (15) days to the Southern Region Area Parcel Grievance Committee.
...
...
The decision of the majority of the panel hearing the case shall be binding on all parties. Decisions reached at each step of the grievance procedure including the Supervisor–Steward level shall be final and binding.
...
If any grievance or dispute cannot be satisfactorily settled by a majority decision of the panel of the S.R.A.P.G.C.... then the grievance shall be submitted to an arbitrator through the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service by either or both parties within five (5) days.
...
The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties and employees involved. In the event that the losing party fails to abide by the arbitrator's decision, or that either party refuses to submit to the arbitrator's jurisdiction, the other party shall have the right to [use] all legal or economic recourse.
At some time prior to June 2010, the Union filed numerous grievances concerning UPS's methods for assigning work opportunities to shifters. The parties resolved some of these grievances through discussion and negotiation, and they memorialized their understanding in a settlement agreement, dated June 16, 2010 (“Settlement Agreement”). Id. UPS agreed to alter its methods for assigning work opportunities to shifters. In exchange, the Union agreed to withdraw certain grievances with prejudice—apparently the referenced grievances were at step 1 of the grievance process. The Union alleges that UPS has not abided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. That is, the Union alleges that UPS has not assigned work opportunities to shifters in the manner agreed upon.
On February 9, 2012, the Union filed suit in district court, seeking a declaration, under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, ordering UPS to abide by the Settlement Agreement. The district court granted UPS's motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Union appealed. We now affirm the dismissal of the Union's complaint.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir.2012). We also review de novo a district court's conclusion about the arbitrability of a dispute. Simon v. Pfizer, Inc. 398 F.3d 765, 772 (6th Cir.2005).
As an initial matter, the parties dispute whether the district court properly exercisedsubject-matter jurisdiction over the Union's suit. In its complaint, the Union asserts jurisdiction under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185. In its appellate brief, the Union instead contends that the district court's sole basis of jurisdiction was the federal-question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. UPS, though master of its motion, styles its motion as a motion to dismiss pursuant to both Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and not as a motion to compel arbitration. But in its accompanying memorandum, UPS only fleetingly references jurisdiction and instead argues that dismissal is proper because the parties' dispute must be resolved in accordance with the CBA's grievance procedures. Because a failure to pursue arbitration means that the Union has failed to state a claim under the CBA and the Settlement Agreement, UPS's motion is more properly construed as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The district court, for its part, dismissed the Union's complaint on the ground that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. But it, too, devotes only a few sentences to discussing jurisdiction.
Although the parties have not thoroughly briefed whether the district court exercised jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 185, we conclude that it did. The LMRA gives federal courts subject-matter jurisdiction over “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees.” § 185(a). Here, the parties' dispute centers on the interpretation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization. Specifically, the parties dispute whether the CBA and the Settlement Agreement require the Union to submit an alleged breach of the Settlement Agreement to the CBA's internal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Townsend v. Stand Up Mgmt., Inc.
...... under Rule 12(b)(6).'" Knight v. Idea Buyer, LLC, 723 F. App'x 300, 301 (6th Cir. 2018) quoting Teamsters Local Union 480 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 748 F.3d 281, 286 (6th Cir. 2014). "A motion to dismiss pursuant to an arbitration agreement should therefore be construed as a Rule 12......
-
Conteers LLC v. City of Akron
... ... CASE NO. 5:20-CV-00542 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT ... law claims for on-the-record review of local administrative action." City of Chicago v ... Duke Energy Int'l , Inc ., 681 F.3d 788, 798 (6th Cir. 2012)). Indeed, ... Int'l Bhd ... of Teamsters , Local 1108 , 863 F.3d 529, 539-40 (6th Cir ... ...
-
Baughman v. KTH Parts Indus., Inc.
...but whether a claim has merit and "is more properly construed as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6)." Teamsters Local Union 480 v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 748 F.3d 281, 286 (6th Cir. 2014 (subject matter jurisdiction existed under the Labor ManagementRelations Act but motion alleg......
-
BLC Lexington SNF, LLC v. Oatis
...parties entered into a valid arbitration agreement is a question for resolution by the Court. See Teamsters Local Union 480 v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 748 F.3d 281, 289 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Granite Rock Co., 561 U.S. at 296). The defendant contends that any arbitration agreement under......