Beauchamp v. Monarch Fire Prot. Dist.

• Decision Date: 13 October 2015
• Docket Number: No. ED 102269,ED 102269
• Citation: 471 S.W.3d 805
• Parties: Thomas L. Beauchamp, II, Dana Buckley, Craig Sullivan and Professional Firefighters of Eastern Missouri, International Association of Firefighters, Local 2665, Respondents, v. Monarch Fire Protection District, Robin Harris, Jane Cunningham and Steve Swyers, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

471 S.W.3d 805

Thomas L. Beauchamp, II, Dana Buckley, Craig Sullivan and Professional Firefighters of Eastern Missouri, International Association of Firefighters, Local 2665, Respondents,

v.Monarch Fire Protection District, Robin Harris, Jane Cunningham and Steve Swyers, Appellants.

No. ED 102269

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR .

Filed: October 13, 2015

Robert W. Stewart, 7700 Bonhomme Ave., Suite 650, St. Louis, MO 63105, for appellants.

Richard A. Barry III, 1034 South Brentwood Blvd., Suite 1301, St. Louis, MO 63144, for respondents.

Introduction

Patricia L. Cohen, Judge

The Monarch Fire Protection District and its Board of Directors (collectively, Monarch) appeal the judgment granting the petition for writ of mandamus and application for injunction filed by Thomas Beauchamp, Dana Buckley, Craig Sullivan, and the Professional Firefighters of Eastern Missouri, Local 2665 (collectively, Petitioners). Monarch claims the trial court erred in issuing the writ of mandamus and permanent injunction because: (1) Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Monarch had a “clear, unequivocal, ministerial duty to promote an employee to captain”; (2) the trial court improperly relied upon extrinsic evidence in construing the parties' collective bargaining agreement; (3) Petitioners failed to establish the existence of a vacant captain position; and (4) Petitioners had adequate, alternative remedies and they failed to demonstrate the likelihood of irreparable harm. We reverse and remand.

Factual and Procedural Background

Monarch and the Professional Firefighters of Eastern Missouri, Local 2665 of the International Association of Fire Fighters (Union) entered a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which governed the parties' employment relationship. Pursuant to RSMo. Section 105.520, Monarch enacted Ordinance No. 28 adopting the terms of the CBA.

Section 2.01 of the CBA, entitled “Management Rights,” provides:

The Union recognizes that all management functions not specifically limited by this agreement are vested exclusively in the District. Such functions include, but are not limited to, the direction of the working force; the utilization of employees on any work assignment whether connected to their customary job or not; the right to hire, discipline, transfer, promote, demote, layoff, and discharge employees; to determine the number or complement of employees required at any work location, or on any job; to set work schedules or change schedules already set; to control overtime and the necessity of an employee working overtime; to make and implement reasonable rules and regulations; and do all other management and operation of the District.

Any of the management's rights, powers, functions, or authority which the District had prior to the signing of this agreement with the Union are retained by the District, except as to those rights, powers, functions, or authority which are specifically and expressly abridged or modified by this agreement.

(emphasis added). Section 2.06 of the CBA, entitled “Filling Temporary Vacancies and Promotions,” governs Monarch's promotional process. Under Section 2.06, promotions to fire captain positions “shall be taken sequentially from a promotional list.” After specifying the procedure for testing and ranking candidates eligible for promotion, Section 2.06 states:

This system shall provide the Fire Chief a list of eligible candidates. Permanent positions shall then be filled from the top three (3) candidates on the list. Acting positions shall be similarly filled by individual shift. The Fire Chief shall recommend, to the Board of Directors, one of the top three (3) candidates on the current list for permanent promotion. If for any reason, a candidate is passed over, that candidate is entitled to an explanation as to why he was passed over and what would be necessary to improve his skills in order to qualify.

The CBA requires Monarch to create a new promotional list every two years.

Section 2.09 of the CBA sets forth Monarch's six-step grievance procedure. The CBA defines the term “grievance” to mean “any actual complaint, dispute or difference between the employer and an employee or group of employees in the bargaining unit concerning an alleged violation, interpretation or application of this Agreement....” The CBA requires that “[a]ll grievances shall be settled” pursuant to its six-step procedure.

On September 25, 2013, Captain Bob Church announced his decision to retire, and Fire Chief Tom Vineyard recommended the Board of Directors (Board) promote Beauchamp to Capt. Church's position. At that time, Beauchamp, Buckley, and Sullivan were the top three candidates on the 2011–2013 promotional list, which was due to expire in November 2013. The Board did not act upon Chief Vineyard's recommendation but instead “tabled” the filling of Capt. Church's vacant position.

On October 25, 2013, Beauchamp, Buckley, and Sullivan filed grievances with the Union alleging that the CBA required the Board to promote one of them to the vacant captain position. Five days later, Beauchamp, Buckley and Sullivan filed a petition for writ of mandamus compelling Monarch “to immediately promote one (1) of the three (3) Relators to the vacant Captain position.”¹In addition, the three employees filed an “application for a temporary restraining order, with notice pursuant to Rule 92.02(b) and preliminary and permanent injunction” requesting the trial court enjoin Monarch “from conducting any further promotional testing, from promoting any candidates, other than Petitioners, to the vacant Captain's position, and from allowing the current promotional list to expire[.]”

Monarch filed a response to the petition for writ of mandamus arguing, inter alia,that: (1) Petitioners failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; (2) Petitioners failed to exhaust the grievance procedure contained in the CBA; (3) under the CBA and RSMo. Sections 321.200and 321.220, Monarch retained “the sole right to determine how many Captains it will employ, as well as the sole right to determine if/when a need to promote an employee to Captain exists”; (4) Petitioners improperly requested the trial court adjudicate contractual rights; and (5) Petitioners had an adequate remedy at law. The following day, the parties entered a consent order, pursuant to which the parties agreed that Monarch: (1) “will not promote anyone into the position of captain, other than Beauchamp, Buckley or Sullivan”; and (2) “may continue the process of developing, testing, etc. for the 2013–2015 captain's list, but will not prepare, create, or publish this list.”

On November 12, 2013, the trial court heard evidence on the petition for a writ of mandamus and application for preliminary and permanent injunction.²At the hearing, Petitioners presented the CBA, the 2011–2013 promotional list, and the testimony of numerous Monarch employees who described staffing at Monarch's fire houses, the competitive testing process, and Monarch's past promotional practices. In regard to the potential harm faced by Petitioners, a captain from the department affirmed that “[i]f the promotional process is permitted to continue and a new list is created prior to the District promoting one of the three Petitioner/Relators, Beauchamp, Buckley, or Sullivan, [it is] possible that they may no longer hold the top three spots on the promotional list.” Chief Vineyard testified that he believed the vacant captain position should “be filled as soon as possible” because “there's a great value in consistency” in staffing work shifts and “in having qualified individuals that are filling those positions.”³On cross-examination, Beauchamp, Buckley, and Sullivan affirmed that they each had filed grievances that were pending before the Board. On November 13, 2013, the trial court entered an order directing the parties to submit memoranda of law and stating that the October 31, 2013 consent order “remain in force and effect until the court has ruled on the Writ and Requests for Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.”

On November 20, 2013, the Board issued a “Step Four Decision” denying the Petitioners' grievances. In its decision, the Board stated that the grievances were untimely and, even if they were timely:

no contract violation has been presented by the grievants/union. Nothing in the CBA requires the District to replace Captain Church with another Captain. Nothing in the CBA requires the District to employ any particular number of employees and/or Captains. In fact, Section 2.01 gives the District the exclusive right to “promote” and “determine the number or complement or employees required at any work location, or on any job.

The Board concluded: “These grievances are now eligible to be moved to Step Five (nonbinding arbitration) if the union requests arbitration within fourteen days of this decision.” The Union did not request the non-binding arbitration provided in Step Five. After the expiration of the fourteen-day period, Monarch unsuccessfully moved the trial court to reopen the record to admit a copy of the Step Four Decision.⁴

In July 2014, the trial court issued its order and judgment granting the Petitioners' request for a writ of mandamus and permanent injunction. The trial court reasoned that mandamus was appropriate because the CBA “imposes upon the District and the Board the unequivocal and clear duty to promote one of the realtors to the vacant Captains position by use of the process and mechanism described in the CBA and specifically § 2.06.”⁵According to the trial court, the “provisions of section 2.06 of the CBA do not provide discretion to the District or its Board in the operation of the mechanism of promotion[.]” The trial court denied that its findings required interpretation of the CBA and stated that, “[t]o the extent that the provisions of the CBA do not specifically articulate a timeframe for [promotions], a reasonable time will be applied by the court.”

In regard...