Abramowich v. CSX Transp., Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 September 2013
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:11–109.
• Citation: 975 F.Supp.2d 513
• Parties: Joe J. ABRAMOWICH, Jr., James F. Cheek, George Friedline, Ralph E. Hough, Harold R. Leonard, Jim B. Manges, Terry W. Marchewka, Pat Ruck, Franklin Randall Shelkey, Mark R. Ward, and Nathan Westfall, Plaintiffs, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, General Committee of Adjustment CSX Transportation Northern Lines, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

975 F.Supp.2d 513

Joe J. ABRAMOWICH, Jr., James F. Cheek, George Friedline, Ralph E. Hough, Harold R. Leonard, Jim B. Manges, Terry W. Marchewka, Pat Ruck, Franklin Randall Shelkey, Mark R. Ward, and Nathan Westfall, Plaintiffs,

v.CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, General Committee of Adjustment CSX Transportation Northern Lines, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:11–109.

United States District Court,

W.D. Pennsylvania.

Sept. 26, 2013.

Bernard P. Matthews, Jr., Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, Greensburg, PA, for Plaintiffs.

James S. Urban, Heidi L. Gunst, Ronald M. Johnson, Jones Day, Pittsburgh, PA, Margo Pave, Zwerdling, Paul, Kahn & Wolly, P.C., Michael S. Wolly, Richard J. Bialczak, Washington, DC, Joshua M. Bloom, Joshua M. Bloom, P.C., Pittsburgh, PA, Kirsten L. Doolittle, The Law Office of Kirsten Doolittle, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, Jeremy E. Meyer, Cleary and Josem, LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT

GIBSON, District Judge.

I. SYNOPSIS

This matter is before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 57) is DENIED, Defendant CSX Transportation, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 62) is GRANTED, Defendant Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 61) is GRANTED, and Defendant Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, General Committee of Adjustment's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 56) is GRANTED.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1337. Venue is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) and (c).

III. BACKGROUND

This case stems from a dispute over an amount of back pay allegedly owed to the Plaintiffs. ( See Doc. No. 39). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant CSX Transportation (“CSXT”) breached the applicable collective bargaining agreement and that Defendants Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (“BLET”) and Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, General Committee of Adjustment CSX Transportation Northern Lines (“GCA”) breached their duty of fair representation. ( See Doc. No. 39). According to the Plaintiffs, CSXT wrongly withheld back pay in violation of the collective bargaining agreement, and BLET and GCA executed a settlement agreement with CSXT resolving Plaintiffs' back pay claims that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith. ( See Doc. No. 39 ¶¶ 45–52).

Plaintiffs filed a Complaint (Doc. No. 1) on May 2, 2011 and an Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 39) on May 17, 2012. Defendant CSXT filed its Answer (Doc. No. 38) on June 12, 2012; ¹ Defendant BLET filed its Answer (Doc. No. 42) on June 12, 2012; and Defendant GCA filed its Answer (Doc. No. 50) on July 9, 2012. Thereafter, the parties conducted discovery.

On January 18, 2013, Defendant GCA filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 56), a brief in support (Doc. No. 64), and a concise statement of material facts (Doc. No. 63). On January 18, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 57), a brief in support (Doc. No. 59), a concise statement of material facts (Doc. No. 58), and an appendix of supporting exhibits (Doc. No. 60), as required by the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (the “Local Rules”). On January 18, 2013, Defendant BLET filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 61), a brief in support (Doc. No. 68), and a concise statement of material facts (Doc. No. 70). On January 18, 2013, Defendant CSXT filed a motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 62), a brief in support (Doc. No. 66), and a concise statement of material facts (Doc. No. 65). In accordancewith Local Rule 56(B)(3), Defendants CSXT, BLET, and GCA jointly filed an appendix of supporting exhibits (Doc. No. 67) for their respective motions for summary judgment on January 18, 2013.

Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to each Defendant's motion (Doc. Nos. 72, 74, 77) and responsive CSMFs (Doc. Nos. 71, 73, 75). Defendant CSXT filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion on February 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 76), responsive CSMF on February 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 78), a reply brief on March 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 86), and a counterstatement of material facts on March 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 87). Defendant BLET filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion on February 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 79), responsive CSMF on February 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 80), a reply brief on March 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 88), and a counterstatement of material facts on March 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 89). Defendant GCA filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion on February 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 83), responsive CSMF on February 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 82), a reply brief on March 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 84), and a counterstatement of material facts on March 19, 2013 (Doc. No. 85).

The relevant facts are as follows.² CSXT operates a railroad system in the Eastern United States. (Doc. No. 65 at ¶ 1; Doc. No. 71 at ¶ 1). Plaintiffs are current or former CSXT employees who worked as locomotive engineers in “helper” service assignments.³ (Doc. No. 65 at ¶ 2; Doc. No. 71 at ¶ 2). BLET is a national labor organization. (Doc. No. 39 at ¶ 17). GCA is a labor organization that negotiates and administers the collective bargaining agreements with CSXT that apply to the Plaintiffs. ⁴ (Doc. No. 39 at ¶ 19; Doc. No. 50 at ¶¶ 17, 19; Doc. No. 70 at 4).

During the time relevant to the helper pay dispute, the General Chairman of GCA was Richard Finamore (“Finamore”), and the Vice General Chairman of GCA was Dan Knorek (“Knorek”). (Doc. No. 63 at ¶ 4; Doc. No. 75 at ¶ 4). The duties of the GCA include settling complaints, claims, and grievances that arise from disputes between the management and the union's members. (Doc. No. 63 at ¶ 4; Doc. No. 75 at ¶ 4). Finamore, as General Chairman, delegated the responsibility of handling members' claims to Knorek, the Vice General Chairman. (Doc. No. 67–2 at 14). Accordingly, Finamore put Knorek in charge of handling the helper pay dispute. (Doc. No. 67–2 at 16).

Plaintiffs were members of Local Division 50, a local union within the GCA's territory. (Doc. No. 63 at ¶ 5; Doc. No. 75 at ¶ 5). Ted Doorley (“Doorley”) was the local chairman for Local Division 50 and was responsible for handling employees' grievances at the local level.⁵ (Doc. No. 63 at ¶ 5; Doc. No. 75 at ¶ 5; Doc. No. ¶ 26).

CSXT and GCA negotiated a collective bargaining agreement, the CSXT–BLET Single System Agreement (“Single System Agreement” or “SSA”),⁶ which became effective on April 25, 2007. (Doc. No. 65 at ¶ 5; Doc. No. 71 at ¶ 5). The collective bargaining agreement establishes the rate of pay for locomotive engineers, which varies depending on the type of service that an engineer is working. (Doc. No. 65 at ¶ 6; Doc. No. 71 at ¶ 6). The instant dispute involves the proper calculation of pay for engineers working in helper service under the Single System Agreement (“helper pay dispute”). (Doc. No. 65 at ¶ 6; Doc. No. 71 at ¶ 6).

Locomotive engineers operating trains between terminals are paid at a rate based on a certain minimum number of miles per day. (Doc. No. 63 at ¶ 7; Doc. No. 75 at ¶ 7). If an engineer operates a train in excess of those miles, he is entitled to a higher rate of pay. (Doc. No. 63 at ¶ 4; Doc. No. 75 at ¶ 4). Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement applicable to Plaintiffs prior to the SSA, engineers working in helper service were paid at a 100–mile basic day rate. (Doc. No. 65 at ¶ 6; Doc. No. 71 at ¶ 6). Article 67.C of the Single System Agreement, the collective bargaining agreement applicable to the instant dispute, sets forth the rate of pay for locomotive engineers working in helper service as follows:

At points other than the Division Home Terminal, the basic day mileage for engineers working helper/pusher assignments will be one hundred (100) miles with assignments guaranteed minimum employment or pay to one hundred twenty-five (125) straight time miles five (5) days per week as stipulated in the job advertisement, to be paid at Engineer's yard rate of pay for all miles of their assignment (worked or advertised) applicable to weight on drivers with overtime to commence after eight (8) hours on duty. In the event arrangements are made for a helper/pusher to work a six (6) or seven (7) day work week, the guarantee above will be adjusted by 125 miles per day.

(Doc. No. 65 at ¶ 7; Doc. No. 71 at ¶ 7; Doc. No. 80 ¶ 3; Doc. No. 82, ¶ 3). At all times relevant to the helper pay dispute, CSXT and Plaintiffs were bound and governed by the terms and conditions of the Single System Agreement. (Doc. No. 58 ¶ 2; Doc. No. 78 ¶ 2, Doc. No. 80 ¶ 2, Doc. No. 82, ¶ 2).

When the Plaintiffs received their first paychecks under the SSA in May 2007, ⁷they discovered that CSXT was not paying them at the rate that they believed was set forth in Article 67.C of the SSA. ( See Doc. No. 58 at 4). Within sixty days after receiving their first paychecks and realizing that CSXT was compensating them at the lower rate, Plaintiffs notified their union representatives of the pay rate problem. ( See Doc. No. 58 at ¶ 4). ⁸ Plaintiffs did not file any formal claims with CSXT concerning the helper pay issue. ( See Doc. No. 58 at ¶¶ 5–6).

In December 2008, Knorek notified CSXT of the helper pay issue when he raised the discrepancy as a payroll issue with Rick Hiel, CSXT Director of Labor Relations (“Hiel”). (Doc. No. 78 at ¶ 6; Doc. No. 58 at ¶ 6). CSXT initially believed the helper pay issue was “a payroll error to be investigated and corrected.” (Doc. No. 78 at ¶ 6; Doc. No. 58 at ¶ 6). From December 2008, until the parties finally settled the matter in November 2010, CSXT and GCA discussed the helper pay issue at numerous meetings and...