Baton Rouge Oil & Chemical Workers v. Exxonmobil, No. 01-30012.
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
Writing for the Court | DeMoss |
Citation | 289 F.3d 373 |
Parties | BATON ROUGE OIL AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, Previously doing business as Exxon Company, USA, a division of Exxon Corporation and Exxon Chemicals Americas, an Operating Division of Exxon Chemical Company, a Division of Exxon Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, formerly known as Exxon Company USA, Defendant-Appellant. |
Docket Number | No. 01-30012. |
Decision Date | 23 April 2002 |
v.
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION, Previously doing business as Exxon Company, USA, a division of Exxon Corporation and Exxon Chemicals Americas, an Operating Division of Exxon Chemical Company, a Division of Exxon Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, formerly known as Exxon Company USA, Defendant-Appellant.
Page 374
Julie Richard-Spencer (argued), Louis L. Robein, Jr., Robein, Urann & Lurye, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
William R. D'Armond (argued), Gregg R. Kronenberger, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Before DeMOSS and BENAVIDES Circuit Judges.1
DeMOSS, Circuit Judge:
This is an appeal of an order compelling arbitration of a grievance filed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Because we conclude that the CBA at issue does not require the defendant, ExxonMobil Corporation, to arbitrate grievances protesting the discharge of probationary employees, we reverse the district court's order compelling arbitration.
ExxonMobil and Baton Rouge Oil and Chemical Workers Union signed a CBA covering certain employees at ExxonMobil's Baton Rouge facilities. The CBA at issue, which extended from February 1999 through March 2002, governed the terms and conditions of employment for bargaining unit members.
ExxonMobil hired Michael Melancon as a special laboratory technician apprentice on March 16, 1998, and discharged him on February 11, 1999. It is undisputed that he was a member of the bargaining unit and that he was a probationary employee for purposes of the CBA. However, the parties do dispute the reason for his termination. The company claims that he was discharged for incompetence, while Melancon and the Union claim that he was discharged because his participation in a National Guard exercise caused him to lose critical training.2
Melancon filed a grievance with ExxonMobil complaining about his discharge. After the Company rejected his claim and
Page 375
refused to arbitrate, the Union brought this action under the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), seeking to compel arbitration. Both parties moved for summary judgment on the arbitrability of this grievance. The district court granted the Union's motion and entered an order compelling arbitration. ExxonMobil appeals here.
The sole issue presented is whether the CBA requires ExxonMobil to arbitrate the reasonableness of a probationary employee's discharge. The relevant provisions of the CBA provide:
Article 144 Unlawful Provision is Invalid:
If this Agreement requires a party to do anything which is prohibited by law, the requirement is invalid. In this connection, law means federal, state or municipal law or a rule, regulation or order issued by a competent government authority or regulative or administrative body.
Article 251 What grievances are Arbitrable:
An arbitrable grievance is a good faith claim by one party that the other party has violated a written provision of this agreement. If the claim is disputed, the issue is either
(1) The interpretation of the provision, or
(2) The facts, or both.
Article 1121 General Discipline:
(a) The Company may discipline an employee only for cause.
(b) Even though an employee does not commit a posted offense, his conduct or work performance may still be cause for discipline. However, the Company may not discipline him without giving him advance notice and, where practicable, an opportunity to correct the situation.
Article 1122 Penalty:
When the Company disciplines an employee, it may impose any penalty which it deems appropriate. But there is this exception when the Company disciplines an employee other than a probationary employee: If the penalty imposed by the Company is discharge, the decision making leave, or suspension in excess of five work-days, and a claim is made that it is not reasonable, then the reasonableness of the penalty is an arbitrable grievance.
Article 1141 Termination:
(a) The Company may terminate a probationary employee at will.
(b) A probationary employee is one whose Total Service after the date of last employment or reinstatement does not exceed one year.
Article 1151 Exercising Rights:
Neither party shall exercise any right under this agreement in an arbitrary manner, but each party shall exercise its right in a reasonable manner and in good faith.
Summary judgment is proper under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
True The Vote v. Hosemann, C.A. No. 3:14–CV–532–NFA.
...v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil and Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir.2002). Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits......
-
Chambers v. Sears, Civil Action No. H–08–3676.
...v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) ( en banc ); see also Baton Rouge Oil and Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir.2002). Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavi......
-
Villagran v. Central Ford, Inc., Civil Action No. H-05-2685.
...summary judgment motion must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response. Baton Rouge Oil & Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th When the moving party has met its Rule 56(c) burden, the nonmoving party cannot survive a summary judgment motion by. resting on ......
-
Allen v. Coil Tubing Servs. L.L.C., CIVIL ACTION NO. H-08-3370
...v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil & Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir. 2002). "The Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and ......
-
True The Vote v. Hosemann, C.A. No. 3:14–CV–532–NFA.
...v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil and Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir.2002). Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits......
-
Martin v. Tex. Dept. of Protect. and Regul. Srvcs., No. Civ.A. H04-4160.
...for summary judgment must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response. Baton Rouge Oil & Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th When the moving party has met its Rule 56(c) burden, the nonmoving party cannot survive a motion for summary judgment by resting on ......
-
Smith v. American Founders Financial, Corp., Civ.A. No. H-05-1779.
...summary judgment motion must be denied, regardless of the nonmovant's response. Baton Rouge Oil & Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th When the moving party has met its Rule 56(c) burden, the nonmoving party cannot survive a summary judgment motion by resting on t......
-
Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Fitch, Civil Action No. 4:09–CV–1548.
...v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir.1994) (en banc); see also Baton Rouge Oil & Chem. Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp., 289 F.3d 373, 375 (5th Cir.2002). “The Court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and th......