Dean Foods Co. v. United Steel Workers of America

• Decision Date: 29 December 1995
• Docket Number: No. 3:94cv1059 AS.,3:94cv1059 AS.
• Citation: 911 F. Supp. 1116
• Parties: DEAN FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA and its Local Union 5840, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

911 F. Supp. 1116

DEAN FOODS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA and its Local Union 5840, Defendants.

No. 3:94cv1059 AS.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

December 29, 1995.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Janilyn S. Brouwer, Barnes and Thornburg, South Bend, IN, Herbert C. Snyder, Jr., Barnes and Thornburg, Fort Wayne, IN, Charles S. Mishkind, Miller, Canfield, Paddock, and Stone, Grand Rapids, MI, for plaintiff.

Richard J. Swanson, Macey, Macey and Swanson, Indianapolis, IN, for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLEN SHARP, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Dean Foods Company ("Dean Foods" or "the Company") filed this action to set-aside, vacate, or modify an arbitration award rendered in favor of its discharged employee Rocky Bachman ("the grievant"), a member of the collective bargaining unit represented by the defendant Union. Defendant United Steelworkers of America ("USWA") and its Local Union 5840 thereafter filed a counterclaim seeking enforcement of the arbitrator's award, including reinstatement and back pay for time lost, together with costs and reasonable attorney's fees. This court has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 ("the Act"), which confers federal jurisdiction over contractual disputes arising out of collective bargaining on the district courts. See 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1994).

BACKGROUND

I.

The grievant, Rocky Bachman, was a union leadperson at Dean Foods who had responsibilities both the Company and the Union describe as primarily supervisory, nonphysical, light-duty work. Although Bachman apparently had a history of problems with absenteeism at Dean Foods, he began with a clean attendance record when the Company implemented a new "no-fault" point system attendance policy on March 1, 1993. By August of that year, however, Bachman had received a final warning that he was on the verge of discharge under the new point system. On August 16, 1993, he submitted a nonspecific doctor's slip (stating simply that he was to be off work for a week) to his immediate supervisor. The plaintiff contends that in order for the grievant's absence to be excused under the new attendance policy,¹ Bachman was required to prove that his absence was related to a "continued medical condition." He provided no such documentation at that time. After he failed to report for work the following day, the plant manager telephoned Bachman's home, only to be told that the grievant was unavailable because he was working on a job for his own concrete business. When the plant manager reached Bachman later that day, he instructed the grievant to report to the plant on August 19, his next scheduled workday. Upon Bachman's arrival at the plant, the plant manager discharged him for exceeding the maximum number of points allowed under the Company's new point system.

II.

When the dispute over Bachman's discharge could not be resolved through the parties' negotiated grievance procedure, the parties voluntarily submitted the case to binding arbitration pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between Dean Foods and USWA.² At the arbitration hearing on April 27, 1994, the grievant claimed that his terminating absences should have been excused due a continuing knee problem.³ Dean Foods, on the other hand, claims to have had no prior knowledge of Bachman's knee problem, either before he reached the brink of discharge or at the time of his final absence. The Company was not represented by counsel at the arbitration hearing and now complains that it was taken by surprise regarding the grievant's assertion that he had been unable to work on August 16 and 17 due to a continuing knee problem. When the arbitrator issued his written Opinion and Award on September 21, 1994, nearly five months after the hearing, the arbitrator held Dean Foods responsible for failing to uncover the grievant's claim of a continuing medical problem, and conditionally required the Company to reinstate Bachman, with full seniority restored and all benefits, including medical benefits, but without back pay for the periods when he was not medically fit to work. The arbitrator conditioned the grievant's reinstatement on his ability to establish that he was medically fit to resume his former job or a substantially equivalent position. The arbitrator retained jurisdiction for an additional ninety days solely for purposes of interpretation and application of the remedy portion of the award.

The parties requested additional hearing dates to resolve various issues they believed had been left open, and the arbitrator scheduled a second day of hearings for February 17, 1995. At the second arbitration hearing, plaintiff Dean Foods began by introducing evidence regarding the grievant's lack of a "continued medical condition." However, before the Company could receive a "full and fair" hearing on the allegedly fraudulent conduct of the grievant, the arbitrator — upon motion of the defendant — chose to limit the presentation of testimony and evidence solely to issues related to the back pay remedy and declared himself functus officio as to the merits of the case. At the close of the second arbitration hearing, the arbitrator required Dean Foods to reinstate the grievant within five days (the parties having stipulated to the medical predicate at the second arbitration hearing), but postponed ruling on the remaining remedy issues until Dean Foods submitted a supplemental complaint. Ultimately, the arbitrator awarded Bachman back pay not to be offset by the grievant's outside interim earnings from his concrete business. Dean Foods "reinstated" Bachman on March 6, 1995, but terminated his employment the following day for his alleged dishonesty during the first arbitration hearing.

In order to preserve its rights, the plaintiff filed its complaint in this court on December 28, 1994, prior to the second day of hearings before the arbitrator. Following the arbitrator's disposition of the case, the plaintiff filed its motion to vacate, set-aside, or modify the arbitration award on August 7, 1995. The defendant simultaneously moved for summary judgment. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a supplemental complaint, and on August 14, 1995, the Union filed its answer and supplemental counterclaim to enforce the arbitration award. The plaintiff filed its cross-motion for summary judgment on September 13, 1995. The court heard oral arguments on October 20, 1995, and now rules in this cause of action.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with any affidavits, show that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56; Russo v. Health, Welfare & Pension Fund, Local 705, 984 F.2d 762 (7th Cir.1993). A thorough discussion of Rule 56 can be found in a trilogy of cases decided in 1986 by the Supreme Court of the United States. See Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Celotex addressed the initial burdens of the parties under Rule 56, and Anderson addressed the standards under which the record is to be analyzed within the structure of Rule 56.

The initial burden is on the moving party to demonstrate, "with or without supporting affidavits," the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that judgment as a matter of law should be granted in the moving party's favor. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. at 2553 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56). A question of material fact is a question which will be outcome determinative of an issue in the case. The Supreme Court has instructed that the facts material in a specific case shall be determined by the substantive law controlling the given case or issue. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. at 2510. Once the moving party has met the initial burden, the opposing party must "go beyond the pleadings" and "designate `specific facts shows that there is a genuine material issue for trial.'" Id. The nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp., 24 F.3d 918, 920-21 (7th Cir. 1994); Hughes v. Joliet Correctional Ctr., 931 F.2d 425, 428 (7th Cir.1991), nor may that party rely upon conclusory allegations in affidavits. Cusson-Cobb v. O'Lessker, 953 F.2d 1079, 1081 (7th Cir.1992).

During its summary judgment analysis, the court must construe the facts and draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Smith v. Fruin, 28 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 735, 130 L.Ed.2d 638 (1995); Brennan v. Daley, 929 F.2d 346, 348 (7th Cir.1991). Furthermore, it is required to analyze summary judgment motions under the standard of proof relevant to the case or issue. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252-55, 106 S.Ct. at 2512-14.

The 1986 Supreme Court trilogy was later reexamined in Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Serv., 504 U.S. 451, 112 S.Ct. 2072, 119 L.Ed.2d 265 (1992), a case born in the context of antitrust law. The most that can be said for Eastman Kodak, however, is that it did not tinker with Celotex and Anderson, and possibly involves an attempt to clarify Matsushita. This view is well-supported by an in-depth academic analysis in Schwarzer, Hirsch, and Barrans, The Analysis and Decision of Summary Judgment Motions, 139 F.R.D. 441 (1992).

Where, as here, cross-motions for summary judgment have been submitted by the parties, the court is not required to grant judgment as a matter of law for one side or the other. Heublein, Inc. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1455, 1461 (2d Cir.1993); Judsen Rubber Works, Inc. v....