Harrison Cnty. Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am.
| Decision Date | 18 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-138 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | THE HARRISON COUNTY COAL COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL UNION, and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION 1501, Defendants/Counter-Claimants. |
(Judge Kleeh)
Pending before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment filed by the Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, The Harrison County Coal Company ("Plaintiff"), along with the Defendants and Counter-Claimants, the United Mine Workers of America, International Union, and the United Mine Workers of America Local Union 1501 (together, the "Union" or "Defendants"). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Plaintiff's motion and grants Defendants' motion.
On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff brought this action against Defendants, seeking to vacate an arbitration award. The Honorable Irene M. Keeley, United States District Judge, ordered the parties to submit a joint stipulated record, cross motions for summary judgment, and response briefs. Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim against Plaintiff. The case was transferred to the Honorable Thomas S. Kleeh, United States District Judge, on December 1, 2018. The parties have filed their cross motions for summary judgment, which are now ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff operates the Harrison County Mine, formerly the Robinson Run Mine, an underground coal mine in West Virginia. Defendants represent Plaintiff's bargaining unit employees for purposes of collective bargaining. The collective bargaining agreement that governs this relationship is the 2016 National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement ("NBCWA"). The NBCWA establishes work jurisdiction of union-represented employees and provides restrictions on Plaintiff's ability to contract out this work.
The NBCWA provides the following regarding "Work Jurisdiction":
ECF No. 10-1 at 10-11. The agreement also distinguishes between (1) Repair and Maintenance Work and (2) Construction Work. The "Scope and Coverage" of Construction Work is as follows:
The NBCWA provides the following regarding resolution of disputes:
The United Mine Workers of America and the Employers agree and affirm that, except as provided herein, they will maintain the integrity of this contract and that all disputes and claims which are not settled by agreement shall be settled by the machinery provided in the "Settlement of Disputes" Article of this Agreement . . . , it being the purpose of this provision to provide for the settlement of all such disputes and claims through the machinery in this contract and by collective bargaining agreement without recourse to the courts.
ECF No. 10-2 at 58. Finally, it states the following about settlements:
Settlements reached at any step of the grievance procedure shall be final and binding on both parties and shall not be subject to further proceedings under this Article except by mutual agreement. Settlements reached at steps 2 and 3 shall be in writing and signed by appropriate representatives of the Union and the Employer.
The dispute leading to this litigation involves work performed at the Harrison County Mine on February 5, 2018. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 8. On that day, Plaintiff hired contractors to install a new belt drive at the mine. Id. On March 8, 2018, the Union filed a grievance (the "Grievance") on behalf of five (5) of its members (the "Grievants"), alleging that Plaintiff violated the NBCWA by hiring a contractor to perform classified work. Id. The Union alleged that "[t]his has been our (union) work in the past." ECF No. 10-4 at 7. The Union requested that the "practice [be] stopped" and that the Union "be made whole in all ways." Id.
On May 10, 2018, the parties presented evidence at a hearing in front of Arbitrator Thomas L. Hewitt (the "Arbitrator"). ECF No. 1 at ¶ 9. The Arbitrator issued a Decision and Award (the "Award") on June 7, 2018, in which he sustained the Grievance. Id. ¶ 10. The Award includes a Statement of Facts, a summary of the parties' positions, the Arbitrator's Opinion, and his Findings. See ECF No. 10-4 at 2-15.
In the Award, the Arbitrator discussed the classification of the belt drive installation because its classification impacts Plaintiff's ability to hire contractors. See id. at 9-15. Heanalyzed different ways to define "construction" work, including the "strict constructionist" definition advocated for by Plaintiff. Id. In 2017, Judge Keeley issued a decision in Monongalia County Coal Co. v. UMWA, 234 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D.W. Va. 2017) (the "2017 Decision"), in which she applied what the Arbitrator describes as the strict constructionist definition. Id. at 11. The Arbitrator rejected Plaintiff's argument, finding that "new, never-before-used" is not the "commonly accepted definition of construction" applied by arbitrators. Id. Further, he said, a "strict constructionist interpretation and application" of the term "could totally negate Article IA of the NBCWA." Id.
The Arbitrator noted that Article XXIII of the NBCWA provides that settlements "shall be final and binding on both parties . . . ." Id. at 10. On February 25, 2002, the parties entered into such a binding settlement (the "2002 Settlement"): "The parties recognize that belt drive installation work customarily performed at the Robinson Run Mine is classified work." Id. The Arbitrator wrote that mines differ in what types of construction work they define as "classified work." Id. at 11. For instance, "Building of cribs may be considered classified work at one mine due to prior practice and custom not subject to being designated as construction . . . , while in another mine thebuilding of cribs may be considered within the meaning of construction per Judge Keeley." Id. Here, he wrote, belt drive installation work at the Robinson Run Mine (Harrison County Mine) is classified work under the 2002 Settlement, and "it does not matter whether it is considered construction or repair and maintenance." Id.
The Arbitrator found that Plaintiff violated the NBCWA based, in part, on the 2002 Settlement defining belt drive installation as classified work: "[I]nstalling belt drives in this mine has been exclusively classified work . . . and cannot be contracted out." Id. at 14. He described it as a "totally protected activity" via the 2002 Settlement. Id. The Arbitrator found that because belt drive installation was clearly defined in the 2002 Grievance as classified work, Article 1A(i) of the NBCWA is not applicable, and "the building, installation and moving of belt drives is . . . not construction work per se . . . ." Id.
The parties stipulated that the employees were working no less than five (5) days per week. Id. at 12. Still, the Arbitrator awarded each Grievant "eighty (80) hours of pay at their straight time rate." Id. at 15. This was based on four hundred (400) total hours of work by the contractor, divided among the five (5) Grievants. Id. at 7, 15. He wrote that "[t]he contract may not beviolated with impunity and with no redress; otherwise, the provisions of the contract have no meaning and there is no reason to have an agreement." Id. at 14. He also noted that "[v]iolations require a remedy." Id. The Arbitrator found that "the Union lost classified work to which their members were entitled." Id. at 15. He found that "[t]he work . . . is lost to the bargaining unit and 'the bell cannot be un-rung.'" Id. Finally, he wrote that "[e]ach of the five (5) Grievants have suffered the loss of the opportunity to perform" the belt drive work. Id.
Plaintiff now argues that the Court should vacate the Award because it fails to draw its essence from the contract. See ECF No. 11. This was construction work, Plaintiff argues, and contracting for construction work is permissible under the NBCWA if all protected employees are working no less than five (5) days per week. See ECF No. 1 at 5-6. Plaintiff relies on the 2017 Decision, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial