Consolidation Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am.
| Decision Date | 10 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15CV167 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; McElroy Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation; The Ohio Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation; The Harrison County Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation; The Monongalia County Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation; The Marion County Coal Company, a Delaware Corporation; and The Marshall County Company, a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, International Union; United Mine Workers of America, District 31 ; and Ronald Bowersox, Defendants. |
Jeffrey G. Wilhelm, Robert P. Simons, Reed Smith LLP, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiffs.
Arthur R. Traynor, United Mine Workers of America, Triangle, VA, Jeffrey G. Blaydes, Mark W. Carbone, Carbone & Blaydes, PLLC, Charles F. Donnelly, UMWA Legal Department, Charleston, WV, for Defendants.
Pending before the Court is the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, the United Mine Workers of America, International Union; the United Mine Workers of America, District 31; and Ronald Bowersox (collectively, "the UMWA") (Dkt. No. 7). The questions presented are (1) whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction under Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 207, 114 S.Ct. 771, 127 L.Ed.2d 29 (1994) ; and (2) whether the Court should dismiss the case because the collective bargaining agreement between the parties requires arbitration. The Court finds that it does have jurisdiction, but nonetheless GRANTS the UMWA's motion to dismiss because MAEI was obligated to arbitrate the dispute. It therefore DISMISSES the case WITHOUT PREJUDICE .
As it must, the Court construes the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, here, the plaintiffs. See De'Lonta v. Johnson, 708 F.3d 520, 524 (4th Cir.2013). Consolidation Coal Company, McElroy Coal Company, The Ohio County Coal Company, The Harrison County Coal Company, The Monongalia County Coal Company, The Marion County Coal Company, and The Marshall County Coal Company (collectively, "MAEI"), own and operate five underground bituminous coal mines within the Northern District of West Virginia (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2). MAEI employs hourly wage UMWA workers pursuant to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 2011 ("the CBA"). Id. at 2. Article III of the CBA provides that miners must report unsafe safety and health conditions to employers immediately; miners also must make an effort to resolve such issues first with employers. Id.
On December 5, 2013, Consol Energy, Inc. ("Consol") sold the five mines to Murray Energy Corporation ("MEC").1 Id. at 2, 8. Shortly after the sale, between December 5-13, 2013, MEC's Chairman of the Board of Directors, President, and Chief Operating Officer, Robert E. Murray ("Murray"), traveled to each mine and spoke to employees at awareness meetings. Id. at 8-9. During these awareness meetings, Murray educated miners "regarding the operations of the mines and their employees to ensure that MEC's core values and policies, including commitment to safety, are being implemented in the field." Id. at 9.
Local UMWA member Ann Martin ("Martin"), who was Chairperson of the Safety Committee for the Harrison County Mine at the time, attended the initial awareness meeting at the Harrison County Mine on December 11, 2013. Id. She later testified that Murray intimidated and offended miners during the awareness meeting. Id. After the meeting, Martin contacted defendant Ronald Bowersox ("Bowersox"), who is an International Safety Representative employed by the UMWA and assigned to District 31. Id. at 5, 9. Martin and Bowersox spoke after every awareness meeting to coordinate the local UMWA response to assertions made by Murray during the meetings. Id. at 10.
Before the 2013 sale, the UMWA had a custom and practice of first raising safety and health concerns with mine management before filing complaints under § 103(g)2 of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U.S.C. § 801 (2012) ("the Mine Act"). Id. at 2, 7-8. In the year before MEC's acquisition, when Consol controlled the 5 mines, UMWA members generated a total of 54 § 103(g) complaints. Id. at 8.
Following the sale of the mines to MEC, however, UMWA members employed at the mines, who were displeased with new management, allegedly "embarked on an anti-management campaign" against MAEI. Id. at 2. As part of that campaign, miners began filing a significantly larger number of § 103(g) complaints, a high percentage of which were subsequently deemed meritless by the Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA"). Id. at 2-3. After the awareness meetings, for example, the UMWA filed a total of 100 § 103(g) complaints—an 85% increase over the prior year. Id. at 10. The number of meritless complaints increased from 27 (prior to MEC's acquisition) to 45, a 66% increase.3 Id. In 2015, this trend continued. Complaints at the Marshall County Mine increased by 416%; complaints at the Ohio County Mine increased by 1000%; complaints at the Monongalia County Mine increased by 87%; and complaints at the Harrison County Mine increased by 64%. Id.
MAEI contends that it spent time, money, and human resources investigating each § 103(g) complaint. Id. To combat the increase in meritless § 103(g) complaints, on April 10, 2014, Murray sent a letter to the UMWA International President, Cecil E. Roberts, Jr., noting the high number of meritless § 103(g) complaints. Id. at 10-11; Dkt. No. 1-6 at 2-3. In a similar letter sent to mine superintendents, Murray requested that the UMWA, "in place of, or in conjunction with a 103(g) complaint," inform mine management of any safety issues, in compliance with Article III of the CBA (Dkt. No. 1 at 11; Dkt. No. 1-7 at 2).
The UMWA responded to the April 10, 2014, letter by filing a § 105(c)4 interference complaint with MSHA (Dkt. No. 1 at 11). Bowersox testified that the purpose of the § 105(c) complaint was to stop Murray from "getting in front of a group and possibly interfering with the miners' rights under the Act." Id. MAEI contends that by its anti-management campaign, especially its failure to comply with Article III of the CBA, the UMWA has breached the CBA and interfered with MAEI's contractual right to manage its operations and employees. Id. at 3.
On September 18, 2015, MAEI filed suit in this Court, alleging that the UMWA breached the CBA by engaging in an "orchestrated, purposeful pattern of conduct to dilute MAEI's management rights by attempting to curtail or eliminate Mr. Murray's participation in the [a]wareness [m]eetings." (Dkt. No. 1 at 12). According to MAEI, its claim of breach of the CBA is actionable under § 185 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 141 (2012) ("LMRA"). Id. at 13.
Four days after MAEI filed suit in this Court, an administrative law judge ("ALJ") heard testimony in the UMWA's § 105(c) interference case (Dkt. No. 7-1 at 12).5 The complaint filed in this Court contained deposition testimony from the interference proceeding, including testimony from three of the six individuals who had filed § 105(c) complaints (Dkt. Nos. 1-3, 1-4, 1-5). Those complainants declined to testify at the ALJ hearing out of fear that any further statements by them would become fodder for this suit (Dkt. No. 7-2 at 33). The ALJ heard the case and, on November 18, 2015, issued a decision in the UMWA's favor, finding that MAEI had violated § 105(c) by interfering with miners' rights to make anonymous § 103(g) complaints. Id. at 37-39. MAEI has appealed that decision to the Commission, and it is currently under review (Dkt. No. 10 at 6).
On January 13, 2016, the UMWA moved to dismiss this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 7), raising the following arguments:
• MAEI has failed to arbitrate the dispute as required by the CBA;
• MAEI's claims are precluded by the ALJ's decision in the § 105(c) proceeding;
• MAEI's claims violate the CBA;
• Bowersox's role in the events was as a union official, and he is therefore an improper defendant; and
• MAEI's claims are barred by the statute of limitations.6
MAEI opposed the motion on February 26, 2016, contending that the crux of the case arises under the LMRA, and not the Mine Act (Dkt. No. 10). Further, it argues (1) that the CBA does not require it to resort to arbitration; (2) that a 10-year statute of limitations for breach of contract is applicable; and (3) that the case is neither precluded by the Mine Act nor the ALJ's non-final decision. Id.
On March 21, 2016, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 517,7 the United States filed a statement of interest urging the Court to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because it improperly circumvents the administrative review procedures in the Mine Act (Dkt. No. 18). The United States also contends that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because it presumes that the civil rights afforded by the Mine Act can be waived by a CBA. Id. The United States takes no position on the remainder of the arguments raised by the UMWA in its motion to dismiss.
In its response to the United States' statement of interest, MAEI argues that jurisdiction exists under the LMRA, and that its complaint states a claim under that statute (Dkt. No. 24). On May 6, 2016, the Court heard oral argument on the jurisdictional and arbitration issues. These matters now are ripe for review.
The Court construes the United States' request to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). At oral argument, the United States clarified its intent to bring a facial challenge—not a factual challenge—to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial