Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Local 1, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers

• Decision Date: 18 November 2016
• Docket Number: No. 4:16–CV–990 SNLJ,4:16–CV–990 SNLJ
• Citation: Anheuser-Busch, LLC v. Local 1, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 221 F.Supp.3d 1135 (E.D. Mo. 2016)
• Parties: ANHEUSER–BUSCH, LLC, Plaintiff–Counterdefendant, v. LOCAL 1, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL–CIO, Defendant–Counterplaintiff.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

221 F.Supp.3d 1135

ANHEUSER–BUSCH, LLC, Plaintiff–Counterdefendant,

v.LOCAL 1, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL–CIO, Defendant–Counterplaintiff.

No. 4:16–CV–990 SNLJ

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

Signed November 18, 2016

Terry L. Potter, Andrew James Weissler, Husch Blackwell, LLP, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiff–Counterdefendant.

Amanda K. Hansen, Christopher N. Grant, Sally E. Barker, Schuchat and Cook, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant–Counterplaintiff.

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff-counterdefendant Anheuser–Busch, LLC("A–B" or "the Company") and defendant-counterplaintiff Local 1, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL–CIO ("IBEW Local 1" or "the Union") are parties to a collective bargaining agreement pursuant to which they entered arbitration.The Company seeks to vacate the April 22, 2016 labor arbitration award ordering reinstatement of electrician Gerald Ray Squalls("Squalls" or "the Grievant"), who was terminated by the Company on August 3, 2015.The Union seeks an order enforcing the arbitration award.The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

I.Background

The following facts are undisputed except where indicated.The Union represents a bargaining unit of maintenance employees at the Company's brewery in St. Louis, Missouri, and the parties' relationship is covered by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA").The CBA provides for the filing of a grievance concerning disputes about the meaning, interpretation, application, and violation of the CBA.

Gerald Squalls worked for the Company as an electrician and was a member of the bargaining unit represented by the Union.Squalls's job duties included working with high voltage and high-speed machinery, including palletizers, a dangerous piece of equipment with the capacity to crush and kill people.Squalls's supervisor Russ Mathis saw Squalls before the start of his July 17, 2015 shift and noticed that Squalls was slow and struggling to eat a candy bar.Mathis decided Squalls was not fit to work in that condition and took him to a conference room.Mathis and another supervisor filled out a Suspicion Observation Checklist, and the Company decided to test Squalls for alcohol.Squalls took a breathalyzer test and registered a blood alcohol content of 0.206, well above the legal limit for driving.A urine test for other drugs was negative.

The Company suspended Squalls pending investigation.Squalls said he and a friend began drinking alcohol¹ at 6:30 p.m. on the night of his shift and that he stopped drinking at 8:30 p.m. because he knew he had to work at 11 p.m.The Company was concerned that Squalls did not realize he was impaired and, taking into account that he and three other employees had been suspended for drinking beer at work in January 2011, the Company terminated Squalls on August 3, 2015 for violation of its Rule 9, which prohibits "Being in a condition which makes it impossible for you to perform your work in a satisfactory manner."

Central to this case is the meaning and application of the "Beer Drinking Memorandum of Understanding" or "Beer Drinking MOU," which is part of the CBA.The MOU states as follows:

BEER DRINKING DISCIPLINE

The following progressive discipline shall apply to any employee involved in the unauthorized consumption of beer on plant premises before, during, or after the employee's shift.

First Offense—a one month suspension without pay.

Second Offense—a second offense within a four-year period—A two-month suspension without pay.

Third Offense—a third offense within a four-year period of having served a two-month suspension for unauthorized beer consumption shall require discharge.

It is further understood and agreed that:

1.The levels of discipline provided above are firm.No arbitrator shall have the power to reduce the level of discipline unless the arbitrator finds that the employee is not guilty of consumption of beer on premises.

2.The above disciplinary program deals with only the unauthorized consumption of beer on plant premises.The Company's rules and disciplinary programs relating to other alcoholic beverages, drugs, intoxication, theft, and other matters shall in no way be prejudiced by this Agreement.

3.Evidential Breath Testing (EBT)—if reasonable suspicion is substantiated that an employee has violated the Company's Alcohol Policy (requires employer to base suspicion on observable symptoms indicating intoxication—e.g., appearance, behavior, speech, etc.) then the employee will be required to submit to an EBT alcohol breath test...

An employee testing positive for alcohol will be referred to the [Employee Assistance Program ("EAP") ] for evaluation and treatment.Failure to comply with the EAP treatment program and follow-up recommendations will result in dismissal...

That MOU was in place because it was once acceptable for Company employees to drink beer while working.When that practice stopped, the MOU's progressive discipline program was put into place to ease employees into the new practice.

The Union filed a grievance challenging Squalls's discharge on August 10, 2015.The Company denied the grievance, and, pursuant to the CBA, the unresolved grievance was submitted to arbitration before a labor arbitrator chosen by the parties, Terry Bethel.A hearing was held on March 3, 2016, and Arbitrator Bethel issued his award on April 20, 2016.An amended award was issued on April 22, 2016 to reserve jurisdiction to resolve remedial disputes.The award directed the Company to reinstate Squalls and pay him lost wages and benefits excluding 30 days, which represented a suspension.The Arbitrator further ordered the Company to reinstate Squalls no later than June 2, 2016, which it did not do.The Arbitrator later concluded that the Company had not advanced a good faith reason for its failure to reinstate Squalls and ordered the Company to pay interest on Squalls's backpay until he was reinstated.

The Company filed this lawsuit seeking an order vacating the award, and the Union counterclaimed seeking to enforce the award.The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

II.Legal Standard

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a district court may grant a motion for summary judgment if all of the information before the court demonstrates that "there is no genuine issue as to material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. , 368 U.S. 464, 467, 82 S.Ct. 486, 7 L.Ed.2d 458(1962).In this action to vacate an arbitration award, brought under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act,29 U.S.C. § 185, the Court must defer to the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA except in limited circumstances.SeeUnited Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc. , 484 U.S. 29, 38, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286(1987)."The arbitrator may not ignore the plain language of the contract; but the parties having authorized the arbitrator to give meaning to the language of the agreement, a court should not reject an award on the ground that the arbitrator misread the contract."Id."Only when an arbitrator issues an award that does not ‘draw its essence from the contract,’ because it reflects instead the arbitrator's ‘own notions of industrial justice,’ may a court vacate an arbitrator's decision."Alcan Packaging Co. v. Graphic Commc'n Conference, Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters & Local Union No. 77–P , 729 F.3d 839, 841(8th Cir.2013), as corrected (Oct. 30, 2013)(quotingMisco , 484 U.S. at 38, 108 S.Ct. 364 ).

III.Discussion

The Company seeks an order vacating the Arbitration Award because, it says, the Arbitrator based his award on something other than the CBA, displacing the Company's rule that an employee is subject to discharge for "[b]eing in a condition which makes it impossible for [the employer] to perform [his] work in a satisfactory manner."It is not disputed that Squalls's blood alcohol level tested at 0.206, more than twice the legal limit for driving, more than two hours after Squalls drove to work.It is also undisputed that Squalls became intoxicated by drinking alcohol (not beer) before arriving on Company premises.The Company said that it terminated Squalls because Squalls was apparently unaware of his impaired state despite the high blood alcohol level; because Squalls said he had drunk alcohol before his shift on other occasions; and because Squalls had been suspended pursuant to the Beer Drinking MOU in January 2011 for drinking beer on plant premises.

The Union observes that there is no "alcohol policy" that applies generally to bargaining unit employees like Squalls except the last two paragraphs of the Beer Drinking MOU.The MOU states that the "following progressive discipline shall apply to any employee involved in the unauthorized consumption of beer on plant premises" and, below the progressive discipline description, that the "above disciplinary program deals with only the unauthorized consumption of beer on plant premises."The last two paragraphs of the MOU discuss Evidential Breath Testing ("EBT") and note that if the Company has "substantiated""reasonable suspicion" that "an employee has violated the Company's Alcohol Policy," then the employee must submit to a breath test.If the employee tests positive for alcohol, then the employee will be referred to the "Employee Assistance Program""for evaluation and treatment."If the employee fails to comply with the EAP program or follow- up recommendations, the employee will be terminated.

Unlike the first part of the MOU, those last two paragraphs do not mention beer drinking on Company property, and the Union contends that they apply generally to employees testing positive for alcohol at work.The Union therefore says that although employees should know that reporting for work intoxicated is prohibited, the Beer Drinking MOU communicates that...