Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.M.
| Decision Date | 07 May 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-CV-865-WJ-JHR,18-CV-865-WJ-JHR |
| Citation | 473 F.Supp.3d 1256 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 611, Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, Defendant/Cross-Claimant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
James A. Montalbano, Shane C. Youtz, Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC, Albuquerque, NM, for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant.
Robert Conklin, Conklin, Woodcock & Ziegler, PC, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendant/Cross-Claimant.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. 21, filed January 31, 2019 ], and Defendant/Cross Claimant's PNM's Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum Brief in Support of PNM's Cross-Petition to Set Aside or Vacate Arbitration Award and in Opposition to the Union's Petition to Enforce Arbitration Award. [Doc. 22, filed January 31, 2019 ]. Upon reviewing the parties' pleadings and the applicable law, the Court has decided to GRANT Plaintiff's motion and to DENY Defendant's motion.
The following facts are undisputed. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Plaintiff") and the Public Service Company of New Mexico ("Defendant") entered into a collective bargaining agreement for the period of December 5, 2015 to April 30, 2020 ("2015 Agreement"). [Doc. 21 at 3; Doc. 22 at 3]. A prior collective bargaining agreement was effective from July 7, 2012 to April 30, 2015 ("2012 Agreement"). [Doc. 22 at 2]. The 2015 Agreement applies to employees in the Company's Electric, Water, Transmission, Distribution, Production, Meter Reader, and Collector departments in divisions and jobs referenced in that agreement.
The 2015 Agreement stated that all prior agreements not included in the collective bargaining agreement were held to be null and void except for mutual agreements listed in Article 38 and policies listed in Article 47 and Addendums to the collective bargaining agreement. [Doc. 20].
Article 38 provides that any other prior agreements between the parties are null and void. Article 38 states:
[Doc. 20] (bold in original). Article 47 incorporated certain other documents by reference. Article 47 states:
[Doc. 20] (bold in original).
On September 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed a charge against Defendant with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"). The NLRB dismissed the charge. The charge was dismissed as untimely. Plaintiff then decided to take the matter to arbitration.
During arbitration, at issue was the collective bargaining agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant referred to as the "preface" or "administrative section" of the Job Description Manual. This preface is an agreement negotiated and agreed to in or around 1986 by both parties. [Doc. 20.9]. Plaintiff argued at arbitration that the preface was eliminated by the plain language of Article 38, while Defendant argued that the preface was incorporated by reference by the plain language of Article 47.
An arbitration hearing was held. Both parties presented exhibits and witnesses in support of their respective interpretations of the 2015 Agreement.
The question before the arbitrator was whether the preface was eliminated by Article 38 of the 2015 Agreement. [Doc. 20.19]. After reviewing the 2015 Agreement, the documentary evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, the arbitrator determined that the preface was made null and void as of July 7, 2012 based on the language of Article 38. [Id.] Plaintiff filed a petition to enforce the arbitration award and Defendant responded by filing a counter-petition to vacate the arbitration award and both parties filed motions for summary judgment in support of their petitions.
Summary judgment is warranted "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is considered material if it "might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law." Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248–50, 106 S.Ct. 2505. An issue is "genuine" if the evidence is such that it might lead a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Tabor v. Hilti, Inc. , 703 F.3d 1206, 1215 (10th Cir. 2013). "The nonmoving party is entitled to all reasonable inferences from the record; but if the nonmovant bears the burden of persuasion on a claim at trial, summary judgment may be warranted if the movant points out a lack of evidence to support an essential element of that claim and the nonmovant cannot identify specific facts that would create a genuine issue." Water Pik, Inc. v. Med-Systems, Inc., 726 F.3d 1136, 1143-44 (10th Cir. 2013).
The party opposing summary judgment cannot rest on the pleadings but must go beyond the pleadings and "designate specific facts so as to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case in order to survive summary judgment." Sealock v. Colo. , 218 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 2000). The non-movant must "set forth specific facts" from which a rational trier of fact could find in the non-movant's favor, identifying those facts in the affidavits, deposition transcripts, or incorporated exhibits. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores , Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 671 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). The party cannot rest on ignorance of the facts, on speculation, or on unsubstantiated conclusory allegations. Harvey Barnett, Inc. v. Shidler , 338 F.3d 1125, 1136 (10th Cir. 2003) ; Conaway v. Smith , 853 F.2d 789, 794 (10th Cir. 1988). "A fact is ‘disputed’ in a summary-judgment proceeding only if there is contrary evidence or other sufficient reason to disbelieve it[.]" Grynberg v. Total S.A. , 538 F.3d 1336, 1345 (10th Cir. 2008). The existence of some mere factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment. Scott v. Harris , 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). A fact is "material" only if its resolution will affect the outcome of the lawsuit. In determining whether a factual issue is "genuine", the court must decide whether the evidence is such that reasonable jurors could find that the non-moving party is entitled to a verdict. Id.
In analyzing cross-motions for summary judgment, a court "must view each motion separately, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." United States v. Supreme Court of New Mexico , 839 F.3d 888, 906–07 (10th Cir. 2016). "Cross motions for summary judgment are to be treated separately; the denial of one does not require the grant of another." Christian Heritage Acad. v. Okla. Secondary Sch. Activities Ass'n , 483 F.3d 1025, 1030 (10th Cir. 2007).
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA" or "the Act"), establishes "a national policy favoring arbitration of claims that parties contract to settle in that manner," and "provides that arbitration agreements in contracts ‘involving commerce’ are ‘valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.’ " Vaden v. Discover Bank , 556 U.S. 49, 58, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009) (quoting 9 U.S.C. § 2 ).
Section 10 of the FAA provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial