Jones v. Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-1145,94-1145 |
| Citation | 67 F.3d 295 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Patrick L. JONES; Stephen E. Midkiff; Bryon L. Affolter; Dale R. Akers; Lewis D. Alexander; Denny J. Armstrong; James K. Bailey; James H. Barker; Bruce A. Bias; Robert L. Bird; Charles K. Blake, Jr.; Larnie Boddy, Jr.; Robert C. Bokey; Thomas E. Bonham; Warren J. Breckenridge, Jr.; Steven A. Breedlove; Glenn R. Briscoe; Curtis A. Brock; Daniel C. Brogan; Dan W. Brogan; Leonard D. Brogan, Jr.; Patrick M. Brown; Richard E. Brown; Jack L. Bryan; Kent D. Burdette; Merita V. Burdette; John E. Bullard; Otis L. Butler, Jr.; Jack L. Cartwright; Thurman A. Casto; Henry B. Chaney, Jr.; Bobby J. Clark; Franklin K. Clark; Matthews V. Cornell; William H. Crawford; Owens W. Deweese, Jr.; Joseph A. Dolson; James R. Dye; Roger L. Edwards; Robert J. Eggleton; Richard A. Ervin; Robert G. Estes; Roderick E. Evans; Mattie S. Farmer; Michael L. Finney; John W. Fisher; George W. Flood; John W. Fowler, Jr.; Clarence H. Fox; Keith D. Freeman; Calvin L. Gandee; Julius A. Gardner; Sandra G. Garrett; Timothy L. Garrett; Buddy L. George; Larry J. Gillispie; Larry R. Gillispie, Sr.; Thomas G. Grant; William R. Hager; Bobby V. Hall; Stephen M. Hall; Bradley A. Hambrick; Richard A. Hammock, II; Mason T. Hammons; Jackie L. Harris; Charles O. Harrison; Richard L. Harrison; George W. Hartman, Jr.; Mark A. Harvey; Michael L. Hays; John D. Haynes; Gary L. Hicks; Richard L. Hilverding; Dennis G. Holloran; Leslie H. Holstein, Jr.; Donald R. Huffman; Albert H. Hutchinson; George G. Hypes; James M. Janey; Jimmie J. Jeffers; Robert L. Jett; Terry Jividen; James H. Johnston, Jr.; Carroll E. Jones; Oral E. Jones, Jr.; Timmy R. Jones; Ricky R. Kayser; Michael L. Kelly; Gary W. Lacy; Paul H. Lester; Jason L. Litton; Phillip R. Lucas; Joseph W. Lude; Mic |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Dennis Raymond Knapp, Senior District Judge. (CA-92-607-2)
ARGUED: Tony Lee O'Dell, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT V. BERTHOLD, JR., Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Roger Allen Wolfe, JACKSON & KELLY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee Union Carbide; James Morrison Haviland, CRANDALL, PYLES & HAVILAND, Charleston, West Virginia, for Union Appellees. ON BRIEF: Robert V. Bertold, Jr., William M. Tiano, LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT V. BERTHOLD, JR., Charleston, West Virginia; S. Austin Caperton, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellants.
Grant Crandall, William D. Turner, CRANDALL, PYLES & HAVILAND, Charleston, West Virginia, for Union Appellees.
Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge, and CHASANOW, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
Appellants, two hundred and four (204) members of the Kanawha/ Ohio Valley Construction Group (KOV Group), former employees of Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company, Inc. (Union Carbide), appeal the district court's dismissal of their claims against Union Carbide for breach of a collective bargaining agreement and against three Union defendants for breach of their respective duties of fair representation. For the reasons that follow, we find that Appellants' arguments lack merit and affirm the judgment of the district court.
In May, 1990, the KOV Group elected the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (International), its District Lodge 20 (District), and Local Lodge 298 (Local) to represent its members in negotiations with Union Carbide. As a result of these negotiations, the parties entered into a collective bargaining agreement to take effect on November 5, 1990 and continue through December 7, 1992. This agreement was executed by "duly authorized representatives" of Union Carbide and the Local.
After a series of lay-offs of members of the KOV Group, Union Carbide announced, in mid April 1992, its decision to close the KOV Group completely. On May 3, 1992, Union Carbide and the Local entered into an "Effects Agreement," providing severance benefits for non-laid-off members of the KOV Group and terminating the 1990 collective bargaining agreement effective June 30, 1992. The laid-off members of the KOV Group were not permitted to vote on whether to ratify this agreement.
On June 24, 1992, Appellants filed their original nine-count complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, alleging that (1) the Union defendants breached their duties of fair representation, (2) Union Carbide breached the 1990 collective bargaining agreement and violated the Worker Adjustment and Re-Training Notification Act, and (3) the Union defendants and Union Carbide were liable on numerous state law claims. (The Amended Complaints merely added Plaintiffs). By two orders dated January 6 and 7, 1994, the district court dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants on some of the claims against them. On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction and that there was sufficient evidence to require a trial on the merits as to whether (1) Union Carbide breached the 1990 collective bargaining agreement and (2) the Union defendants breached their duties of fair representation to the members of the KOV Group. Appellants do not appeal the dismissal of the state law claims against either Union Carbide or the Union defendants or the claim that Union Carbide violated the Worker Adjustment and Re-Training Notification Act. We review the district court's entry of summary judgment and dismissal of the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Count II of the Amended Complaint is a claim for breach of contract. Appellants contend that Union Carbide awarded work to contractors separate and distinct from Appellants in violation of Article 1.3 of the 1990 collective bargaining agreement. 1 The Effects Agreement, as noted above, terminated the collective bargaining agreement. Appellants argue that the Effects Agreement is void, because it was entered into invalidly. Appellees, on the other hand, argue that the Effects Agreement is valid and controls the outcome of this case.
Appellants claim that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the breach of contract count pursuant to section 301(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), now codified at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). 2 Section 301(a) expressly grants jurisdiction to federal courts to decide "[s]uits for violations of contracts." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). The pertinent language of section 301(a) excludes from federal court jurisdiction suits challenging the validity of collective bargaining agreements: "[A] plaintiff must allege breach of an existing collective bargaining contract in order to avail itself of jurisdiction under section 301 of the Act." A.T. Massey Coal Co. v. International Union, 799 F.2d 142, 146 (4th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1033 (1987). See also International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Cataneo Inc., 990 F.2d 794, 800 n. 15 (4th Cir.1993) (reaffirming holding in A.T. Massey Coal...
To continue reading
Request your trial