Bonds v. GMS Mine Repair & Maint., Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 1273 WDA 2019,1273 WDA 2019
• Citation: 245 A.3d 1102 (Table)
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court
• Parties: Joseph A. BONDS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GMS MINE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE, INC., Appellant

245 A.3d 1102 (Table)

Joseph A. BONDS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. GMS MINE REPAIR & MAINTENANCE, INC., Appellant

No. 1273 WDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Filed December 24, 2020

Reargument Denied March 3, 2021

MEMORANDUM BY FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E.:

Appellant, GMS Mine Repair & Maintenance, Inc. ("GMS") (defendant below), appeals from the judgment ¹ entered on August 9, 2019, in favor of appellees, Joseph A. Bonds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated ("the class") (plaintiffs below), in the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County. After careful consideration, we affirm.

We take the underlying facts and procedural history from our review of the certified record and the trial court's August 12, 2019 opinion.

On August 23, 2013, a class action complaint identifying Joseph Bonds as an individual plaintiff was filed in Federal Court in the Western District of Pennsylvania. 25 months later (9/23/2015), after substantial pre-trial litigation, Senior District Judge Terrence F. McVerry partially granted GMS' motion for summary judgment. Judge McVerry granted summary judgment as to [the class'] claim of a violation of the [f]ederal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Judge McVerry denied summary judgment as to the [class'] state related claims. Also, Judge McVerry denied both the [the class'] motion for class certification pursuant to FRCP 23 and GMS' motion for decertification of a conditionally certified collective action. Judge McVerry declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the [class'] state law claims.

On October 1, 2015, this matter was transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County. On November 18, 2015, [the class] filed a [s]econd [a]mended [c]omplaint asserting claims that included: breach of contract; unjust enrichment and violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) [ 43 P.S. §§ 333.101 - 115 ] for which they sought relief under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) [43 P.S. 260, et seq. ]. On January 30, 2017, the Hon. Damon Faldowski granted [the class'] motion for class certification.

On December 12, 2017, Judge Faldowski denied GMS' summary judgment motion. In a well-reasoned opinion that reflected a clear understanding of the principles of federalism, Judge Faldowski concluded that [the class'] PMWA claim did not fail "simply because the FLSA claim has already been disposed of by the federal court." Citing the published opinions of multiple [f]ederal [d]istrict [c]ourt [j]udges, Judge Faldowski noted that the PMWA provides more protection for employees than the FLSA, which was intended to "establish a national floor under which wage protections cannot drop..."[.]

On February 5, 2018, this trial court granted GMS' motion to certify for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 702(b). The issue certified was whether the pre-shift and post-shift activities in this case constituted compensable "work" under the PMWA. On March 28, 2018, the Pennsylvania Superior Court refused to grant GMS' interlocutory appeal.

Following jury selection on September 17, 2018, the parties proceeded to trial between September 24 through 26, 2018. Much of the trial evidence consisted of testimony of class members Joseph Bonds, Luke Horvath, Shane Baker, Joshua Wade, Timothy Cramer and Joshua Roth, all of whom worked for GMS at Consol Enlow Fork Mine. Mr. Bonds, the class representative, described the hiring process with GMS. After filling out an on-line application, he attended an interview at a GMS work trailer in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania. GMS hired him to do underground mining. He received a "verbal" but not written offer of employment with GMS. Mr. Bonds was hired as [an] hourly worker to work shifts, designated in 8 hour increments. Mr. Bonds stated that he and other GMS miners were required to attend pre-shift safety meetings. After starting work at the Enlow Fork Mine, Consol determined that the parking lot nearest to the mine's bathhouse could no longer be used by GMS employees. In April of 2012, GMS employees were directed to park at a satellite lot located "at the top of the hill" some distance from the bathhouse. GMS responded by initially directing their employees to arrive at the premises 15 minutes earlier for scheduled shifts. 30 to 45 days later, GMS changed the report time to thirty minutes prior to the miners' scheduled shift. GMS workers were not permitted to walk from the satellite parking lot to their customary reporting location. GMS workers were also not permitted to have a Consol worker transport them from the satellite lot to the bathhouse or to have a spouse drop them off at the bathhouse.

The class members testifying at trial all indicated that GMS workers for all shifts were required to report 15, and then shortly thereafter, 30 minutes prior to their shift for the purpose of getting onto a GMS shuttle which then transported them to the Consol Mine bathhouse. Those miners who failed to make the shuttle on time were disciplined or sent home. Post-shift, GMS Miners were required to wait between 10 and 30 minutes for a shuttle to take them to a satellite parking lot. GMS Supervisor, B.J. Gales, told Mr. Bonds and other miners that no payment would be made for additional pre and post shift time the miners were required to be on premises. No payment was made for the early report time or mandated attendance at pre-shift safety meetings which occurred two to three times per week.

At the close of all evidence, this trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of GMS with regard to [the class'] unjust enrichment claim. Further, this trial court decided that the jury should first determine the [c]lass' liability claims and special interrogatories regarding the amounts of time [the class] was required to work pre and post shift.

Following several hours of deliberation, the jury found for [the class]. Specifically, the jury determined that:

1. [The class] proved by a preponderance of the evidence that GMS violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968.

2. The [c]lass proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the van report time was 15 minutes before the stated shift for 30 days.

3. The [c]lass proved by a preponderance of the evidence that each member was required to work 15 minutes per shift before the shift while the van report time was 15 minutes before the stated shift.

4. The [c]lass proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the van report time was 30 minutes before the stated shift for 687 days.

5. The [c]lass proved by a preponderance of the evidence that each member was required to work 30 minutes per shift before the shift while the van report time was 30 minutes before the stated shift.

6. The [c]lass proved by a preponderance of the evidence that each member was required to work 15 minutes per shift after the shift from April 27, 2012 through April 14, 2014.

7. The [c]lass proved by a preponderance of the evidence that GMS breached an oral contract by failing to pay the class members for pre-shift and/or post-shift time.

8. Regarding the Breach of Contract damages, the jury repeated findings 2 through 6.

This trial court bifurcated the issue of a proper calculation of the [class'] damages.[Footnote 3] At post-verdict conferences on October 5, 2018, November 14, 2018 and November 16, 2018, the parties and this trial court discussed the appropriate manner in which to proceed regarding the calculation of [the class'] damages. At the November 16, 2018 conference, GMS [c]ounsel conceded that incomplete wage and hour records had been supplied to [the class]. This trial court denied [the class'] corresponding motion for sanctions due to GMS' non-disclosure as it appeared to be an unintentional error.

[Footnote 3] On several occasions prior to trial, [c]ounsel for GMS argued that a bifurcation of the damages calculation was necessary.

Ultimately, on April 16, 2019, the parties stipulated to an amount of "wage damages." The parties stipulated to "wage damages" in the amount of $1,186,853.63 based upon the jury verdict. In addition to this stipulated sum, [the class] also [sought] an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to 43 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 260.9a, liquidated damages pursuant to 43 Pa.C.S.[A.] § 260.10, and pre-judgment interest.

On July 12, 2019, the parties appeared for argument on post-trial motions. No testimony was presented regarding damages. Instead, on the basis of their stipulation and respective submissions, the parties put this matter to decision. On the basis of the parties' post-trial motions, [the trial court determined the following issues]:

1) The appropriate award of statutory attorney's fees and costs;

2) The propriety of awarding liquidated damages;

3) The propriety of awarding post-judgment interest;

4) Whether this trial court erred in failing to grant summary judgment;

5) Whether this trial court erred in failing to grant a compulsory non-suit or direct a verdict on [the class'] PMWA/WPCL and breach of contract claims; and

6) Whether this trial court erred in certifying and refusing to decertify the class.

Trial court opinion, 8/12/19 at 1-8 (record citations omitted, most footnotes omitted.)

The trial court determined the class was entitled to attorneys' fees in the amount of $349,865.00. ( Id. at 9-14.) It awarded the class costs in the amount of $25,562.53. ( Id. at 14.) It further held the class was owed liquidated damages in the amount of $405,028.64. ( Id. at 15-19.) It also gave it pre-judgment interest in the amount of $418,132.07. ( Id. at 20-23.) The trial court held it properly denied GMS' motion to decertify the class. ( Id. at 23-26.) It found GMS' claim the trial court erred in denying summary judgment was not "a proper subject for a post-trial motion." ( Id. at 27; see also id. at 27-28.) Lastly, it held GMS was not entitled to either a directed verdict and/or a judgment of non-suit. ( Id....