Commc'n Workers of Am. Local 3010, AFL-CIO v. Tel. Tech. Sys., Inc., CIVIL NO. 16-2635 (GAG)

• Court: United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Puerto Rico
• Citation: 221 F.Supp.3d 203
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 16-2635 (GAG)
• Parties: COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA Local 3010, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff, v. TELEPHONE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.
• Decision Date: 01 November 2016

221 F.Supp.3d 203

COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA Local 3010, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff,
v.
TELEPHONE TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant.

CIVIL NO. 16-2635 (GAG)

United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico.

Signed November 1, 2016

221 F.Supp.3d 205

Miguel Simonet-Sierra, Monserratre Simonet & Gierbolini, Guaynabo, PR, Nicolas Miguel Stanojevich, Quinn Conner Weaver Davies & Rouco, LLP, Birmingham, AL, Robert M. Weaver, Quinn Connor Weaver Davies & Rouco, LLP, Decatur, GA, for Plaintiff.

Carlos R. Ramirez, Baerga & Quintana Law Office, San Juan, PR, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

GUSTAVO A. GELPI, United States District Judge

Communication Workers of America Local 3010, AFL-CIO ("the Union") seeks a preliminary injunction against Telephone Technology Systems, Inc. ("TTS") based on their Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA"). (Docket Nos. 1; 2.) The Union seeks an injunction to order arbitration, resume work, and reinstate medical insurance premium payments. (Docket No. 2.) TTS moves to dismiss the Union's complaint, arguing the CBA expired. (Docket No. 18.) After review of the parties' submissions and applicable law, Defendant's motion to dismiss at Docket No. 18 is DENIED . For the reasons set forth below, the Union's motion for preliminary injunction at Docket No. 2 is hereby GRANTED .

221 F.Supp.3d 206

I. Relevant Procedural and Factual Background

The Union and TTS entered into a CBA effective from June 10, 2011 to June 10, 2014. (Docket No. 1, ¶ 5.) Article 10 of the CBA establishes a two-step procedure for resolving disputes. First, an aggrieved party submits a dispute to management; and if unsuccessful, the dispute then proceeds to arbitration. (Docket No. 14–1 at 5.) The CBA's arbitration provision provides:

Any controversy or dispute regarding the Agreement, some of its provisions or any action or complaint by any one or some of the members of the appropriate unit shall be resolved by an arbitrator if and when same have not been resolved according to the procedure agreed to in the previous section of the Article.

(Docket No. 14–1 at 7.) Article 40 details the CBA's "No Strike No Lockout" provisions. (Docket No. 22–1.) Finally, Article 44 of the CBA specifies the agreement's duration:

The parties agree that this Collective Bargaining Agreement shall come into force as of Friday, June 10th of 2011, and shall remain in force until June 10th of 2014. This Agreement will continue in force for the subsequent years with all its properties, unless one of the parties notified the other in writing as to their wish to modify same, no later than three (3) months prior to its termination. No later than thirty (30) days after stated notification, the parties shall initiate the collective bargaining. Lastly the parties agree that the provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement shall continue in force with all its properties until a new Collective Bargaining Agreement is negotiated, and until the date in which the new provisions come [sic ] into force.

(Docket No. 27–1.) Thus, the provisions of Article 44 state the CBA "shall remain in force until June 10th of 2014" and also that the CBA "shall continue in force with all its properties until a new [CBA] is negotiated[.]" Id.

June 10, 2014 came and went. On July 13, 2015, the parties agreed to "extend the [CBA] until May 31, 2016 in full force and effect" except for certain compensation-related modifications.¹ (Docket No. 14–2.) The extension end date of May 31, 2016 was "subject to an additional year extension, if the parties so were to agree." Id. at 2.

After May 31, 2016, the parties continued to negotiate an extension, but were unable to come to an agreement. (Docket No. 1, ¶ 5.) The parties dispute the content and context of those negotiation efforts. TTS claims Union employees refused to work on July 27, 2016. (Docket No. 22–2 ¶ 7.) The Union denies any strike and points to two August 2016 letters informing TTS that the Union is "available and willing to work." (Docket Nos. 14–4 at 1; 22-2 at 7.)

On August 12, 2016, the Union filed a grievance against TTS. (Docket No. 14–3.) TTS did not respond. (Docket No. 1, ¶ 14.) On August 23, 2016, the Union sought to arbitrate the unresolved grievance. (Docket No. 14–5.)

On September 12, 2016, the Union filed a complaint for preliminary injunctive relief and a motion for preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration before this Court. (Docket Nos. 1, 2.) The Court then ordered TTS to show cause on or before September 27, 2016 as to the Union's injunction request. (Docket No. 11.) TTS filed its

221 F.Supp.3d 207

motion in compliance and moved to dismiss the Union's motion for preliminary injunction. (Docket No. 18.) The Union replied; TTS sur-replied. (Docket Nos. 23; 31.) On October 19, 2016, the matter stood as submitted. (Docket No. 33.)

II. Discussion

The fundamental dispute between TTS and the Union concerns whether either party violated the CBA by engaging in a strike or lockout. From the Union's perspective, TTS violated the CBA by discharging or locking out Union members and failing to pay medical insurance premiums. (Docket No. 1, ¶ 16.) From TTS's perspective, the Union violated the CBA—to the extent it did not expire on May 31, 2016—by striking. (Docket No. 18 at 4.) From either perspective, a threshold question in this dispute is whether the CBA expired on May 31, 2016. (Docket Nos. 1, ¶ 5; 18 at 2.) Antecedent to that threshold question is another preliminary question: who should decide whether the CBA expired, the Court or an arbitrator?

First, the Court addresses TTS's motion to dismiss. TTS argues there is no arbitrable dispute because the CBA expired before the Union filed its grievance. Whether the CBA expired is, itself, an arbitrable dispute under the terms of the CBA's arbitration clause. Accordingly, the Court turns to the Union's motion for a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration. The papers submitted by the parties demonstrate the Union's entitlement to injunctive relief.

A. TTS's Motion to Dismiss

The Court considers TTS's motion to dismiss under the familiar Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Plaintiff's factual allegations in the complaint must "possess enough heft" to set forth "a plausible entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 557, 559, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ; Thomas v. Rhode Island , 542 F.3d 944, 948 (1st Cir. 2008).

The Norris LaGuardia Act generally prohibits injunctions in labor disputes. 29 U.S.C. §§ 101 -115. However, the Boys Markets exception—which interprets Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) —allows for jurisdiction to hear disputes arising from the alleged violation of collective bargaining agreements. Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770 , 398 U.S. 235, 252–53, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970). The party seeking an injunction must show the alleged grievance is arbitrable. Id. at 247–49, 90 S.Ct. 1583. The arbitrability of a given dispute turns on the scope of the arbitration...