Ballou v. United Parcel Serv.
| Decision Date | 09 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 20-2640-JWB |
| Parties | MICHAEL BALLOU; HENRY MARTINEZ; MATTHEW SPINNATO; CESAR RICANO; JEREMY FLYNN; JERRY PORCHIA; DAVID GOODNIGHT; and DANA MOYE, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
This matter is before the court on Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 71.) The motion is fully briefed and is ripe for decision. (Docs. 72, 75, 76, 81.) For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiffs are current full-time UPS employees who work as “Feeder Drivers,” meaning they operate 18-wheel commercial vehicles that transport packages for UPS from hub-to-hub rather than from hub-to-customer. When they applied for employment, Plaintiffs were advised and acknowledged that their employment would be pursuant to an applicable collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). (Doc. 72 at 5.)
Prior to their employment with UPS, Plaintiffs Martinez, Porchia Goodnight, and Moye were all members of the same union-the Teamsters Local 41 (the “Union”). Since the beginning of their employment with UPS, Plaintiffs have been members of a collective bargaining unit represented by the Union. The Union has exclusive statutory authority to bargain for, negotiate and set the terms and conditions of employment for the bargaining unit, including all Feeder Drivers. Those terms and conditions of employment are set forth in three documents: (1) the National Master UPS Agreement (“the CBA”); (2) the Teamsters and UPS Central Region Supplemental Agreement (“CRS”); and (3) the Local Union Supplemental Agreement between UPS and Local 41 (“Local 41 Rider”). The current CBA is in effect from August 1, 2018, through July 31, 2023. (Id. at 6.)
The CBA, CRS, and Local 41 Rider contain provisions on wage rates, hours, and job protections applicable to Plaintiffs' employment. The CBA also covers terms and conditions of employment for all Feeder Drivers nationwide including Plaintiffs. These documents are all available on the International Brotherhood of Teamsters' website. (Id. at 6-7.)
The CBA contains a multi-step grievance-arbitration procedure (Art. 8 of the CBA and Art. 5 of the CRS) to resolve “any controversy, complaint, misunderstanding, or dispute arising as to interpretation, application or observance of any of the provisions” of the CBA. The decision “reached at any stage [of the grievance-arbitration process] shall be final and binding on both parties.” (Id. at 7.)
By virtue of an “individual agreements clause” in CBA Art. 6, Sec. 1, UPS cannot enter into or negotiate separate terms or side agreements with individuals or sub-groups of the bargaining unit:
Except as may be otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Employer agrees not to enter into, or attempt to enter into, any agreement or contract with its employees, either individually or collectively, or to require or attempt to require employees to sign any document, either individually or collectively, which in any way conflicts with the provisions of this Agreement. Any such Agreement or document shall be null and void.
(Doc. 72 at 8.)
A job protection provision in the CBA (Art. 26, Sec. 1) states that if UPS adopts alternate means of transporting packages from hub-to-hub, no Feeder Driver with more than three years seniority in that classification will be laid off or displaced from that classification as a result of the change. (Id. at 8.) Another CBA provision requires UPS to give prior notice and meet with the affected local union in the event that a change in operations will result in a layoff of senior employees. (Id.) (citing (CBA Art. 38, Sec. 1(a)).
Sections 2 and 3 of Article 41 of the CBA govern wage progressions applicable to the Plaintiffs here:
The progression for employees entering a package car driving, feeder or other full-time job (other than an air driver, Article 43 jobs or a job covered by Sections 3, 4, or 6 below) after August 1, 2018 shall be as follows:
(Doc. 72 at 9.)
Article 41, Section 1 of the CBA provides that UPS can implement new premium shipping methods, but that “[n]o feeder driver will be laid off or displaced from a feeder classification as a direct result of any provision in this article.” (Id.) If premium services require an additional classification of Feeder Driver, UPS must provide such employees a minimum four-day workweek. UPS must also provide regular benefits to such employees, as well as the opportunity to work ten hours per day, four days per week. (Id. at 9-10.)
Article 3, Sections 5 to 8 of the CRS contain processes for electing alternate work during layoffs of full-time employees, including displacing junior employees, obtaining new permanent jobs, and other options. Article 3, Section 13 of the CRS contains provisions relating to the Feeder Driver Annual Bid, which occurs the third week in April each year. It also contains provisions on temporary or other elimination of a Feeder Driver position. (Id. at 10.)
The Local 41 Rider also has provisions relating to the Feeder Driver Annual Bid and UPS's ability to hire into Feeder Driver positions during the holiday season. It also provides that for purposes of layoff, job selection, or displacement, Feeder Drivers are reviewed off a master seniority list including drivers in the Greater Kansas City Area, and not just a single facility. (Id. at 11.)
Although the CBA provides that full-time jobs such as Feeder Driver positions must be filled on a six-for-one basis using existing UPS employees, UPS can hire so-called “off the street” or external candidates if the internal pool of candidates is insufficient. In the fall of 2018, UPS was looking to hire off-the-street Feeder Drivers after their internal pool was exhausted. UPS held informational or “recruitment” meetings to share information about Feeder Driver positions. Prior to accepting employment with UPS, each Plaintiff attended an initial informational or recruiting meeting on-site at Defendant's facility in Lenexa, Kansas, where they were provided information about employment. UPS On-Road Supervisor John Lannon attended these meetings on behalf of UPS. Union representatives also attended the meetings. As part of the meetings, Lannon provided information about the expected hours, rate of pay, and other particulars of the position, including the fact that employees had the right to join the Union as part of the job. (Doc. 72 at 12.)
In the fall of 2018, UPS approved a Market Rate Adjustment (MRA) for Feeder-Drivers in Lenexa, Kansas, raising the hourly rate for Feeder Drivers from the CBA rate to $30 per hour. (Doc. 70 at 3.) In meetings held after the MRA was approved, Lannon communicated to attendees that they could expect to make $30 per hour for Feeder Driver work. (Doc. 72 at 13.)
During the recruitment meetings, Lannon also told attendees there could be layoffs, and that if there were, they would not be laid off to the street but could still work full-time inside the Hub and maintain their benefits. (Id.) Lannon said UPS had not had recent layoffs and did not expect layoffs. (Doc. 75 at 2.) Plaintiffs testified Lannon said that the pay rate for Feeder Drivers was a guaranteed $30 per hour, with expectations that it would increase over a four-year period, and that the hourly rate for Hub activities (non-feeder work) was $25 per hour. (Id.)
Union President Ralph Stubbs testified the Hub rate discussed at the recruitment meeting he attended was the contractual rate for part-time or inside work, which he believed was about $5 per hour less than the CBA contractual rate for a Feeder Driver. (Doc. 72 at 12.)
Plaintiffs accepted employment with UPS in the fall of 2018 in reliance on the express representations made by UPS at the time of hiring, including that they would be paid $30 per hour for Feeder Driver work and $25 per hour on a full-time basis for non-feeder work, including work in the Hub in the event of a layoff. Upon joining UPS, Plaintiffs were paid $30 per hour for Feeder Driver work in accordance with the MRA.
In 2019, Plaintiffs were laid off at various intervals from feeder driving. During those periods, seven of the eight Plaintiffs accepted at least some work in the Hub. They were paid about $15 per hour for work performed in the Hub. Plaintiff Moye never performed Hub work. By the end of 2019, each Plaintiff was returned to work full-time.
The MRA rate expired in March of 2020, at which time UPS returned the Feeder Drivers, including Plaintiffs, from the MRA rate of $30 per hour to the CBA rate of $23 per hour. Lannon testified he did not know that the $30 per hour MRA rate would expire until it had already expired, and that he was upset at that point because he had been telling employees they would be paid the MRA rate...
To continue reading
Request your trial