Koshatka v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.

• Decision Date: 24 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-1549,84-1549
• Citation: 762 F.2d 329
• Parties: 119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2736, 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2325, 103 Lab.Cas. P 11,505, 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,967 KOSHATKA, Edgar, Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit

Page 329

762 F.2d 329

119 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2736, 120 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2325,

103 Lab.Cas. P 11,505, 104 Lab.Cas. P 11,967

KOSHATKA, Edgar, Appellant, v. PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Daily News.

No. 84-1549.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued March 29, 1985.

Decided May 30, 1985.

As Amended June 25 and July 24, 1985.

Michael R. Needle (Argued), Needle Feldman & Herman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

Richard S. Meyer (Argued), Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Kauffman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.

Before ALDISERT, Chief Judge, and SLOVITER and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges. ^*

OPINION OF THE COURT

ALDISERT, Chief Judge.

This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court properly held that a submission to and decision by an arbitrator barred an action at this time by appellant under Sec. 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185. Specifically, we must evaluate the consequence of the arbitrator's ruling that appellant could not grieve individually, but that his claim could be and was subsumed in the grievance presented by his union. We conclude that because the union may proceed to arbitration on appellant's claim, his Sec. 301 action was premature. We therefore affirm.

I.

From 1974 to 1982, appellant Edgar Koshatka worked as a freelance writer doing entertainment stories for the Philadelphia Inquirer. Throughout this time, he was paid on a per piece basis for his articles and a weekly entertainment column and was considered a "non-staff correspondent." The collective bargaining agreement in effect for regular employees of the Inquirer during the relevant period specifically stated that it did not apply to "non-staff correspondents," Agreement Sec. 1(a), app. at 30-31, and placed limits upon the use of the freelancers. Id. Sec. 28, app. at 72. The Agreement also specified a method of binding arbitration for "[a]ny dispute as to the interpretation of any clause of this agreement." Id. Sec. 32, app. at 74.

Koshatka contends that the amount of work he did for the paper gradually increased to the point that, in 1978, he was doing more work than the regular staff members in the entertainment department. ¹ In 1979, he formally requested that the Inquirer hire him as a full-time staff member and the newspaper refused. Appellant stated, however, that "oral promises and statements of encouragement" led him to believe that the newspaper would eventually hire him. App. at 310. After waiting for this promise to be fulfilled, appellant complained to the Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, the collective bargaining representative of the Inquirer's staff employees. On March 2, 1982, the Guild filed a formal grievance, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, with Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., the Inquirer's publisher (hereinafter, "the Inquirer"). Through an appropriate official, the Guild sought, inter alia, to have appellant placed on the Inquirer's "regular employee roster" and provided with back pay and benefits corresponding to that status:

Please consider this a formal demand for a joint board hearing in the Guild's grievance concerning the improper use of stringers, including a demand that certain of the stringers be declared staffers by virtue of their routine.

In particular, although not limited to, this grievance centers around Edgar Koshatka, whom the company alleges is a stringer and the Guild contends is more properly classified as a full-time employee and demands his status be adjusted to the same with him receiving full retroactive compensation and benefits from the day he began working regularly for The Inquirer's Features Department, approximately early 1977.

I must point out that this issue, as well as numerous improper use of stringer issues have been repeatedly brought to the company's attention at the grievance table and in some instances the company has acknowledged its error. In the Koshatka case however there has been no admission, only an attempt to cloud the issue--alleging that Koshatka was hired to work with a staffer "who couldn't carry his own load."

Id. at 226.

Plaintiff has conceded that "[t]he Guild thereafter wrote to the American Arbitration Association requesting the arbitration of 'Edgar Koshatka Classification Grievance.' " ²

On April 7, 1983, the Guild and the Inquirer appeared before an arbitrator to determine the arbitrability of the Guild's claim. As reported by the arbitrator:

The Union claims that the Company has violated the Agreement by using stringers or free-lance writers to an extent equivalent to regular employment. In particular, the Union focuses on the situation of Edgar Koshatka, who started writing for the Company in October 1974.

....

... The Union seeks to have Mr. Koshatka classified as a staff correspondent and/or compensated for the alleged period of full-time services.

Id. at 93-94. The remedy the Guild sought for appellant through arbitration was to "(a) compensate him and/or (b) have him classified as a regular staff writer." Id. at 97.

The arbitrator made two significant determinations: first, that because the Guild's charge alleged a violation of a contract right, it was arbitrable; second, that Koshatka was "not entitled personally to seek relief under the Agreement." Id. at 98-99 (emphasis supplied).

The arbitrator rendered her decision on May 20, 1983. On August 25, 1983, appellant filed a praecipe to issue a writ of summons in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, purportedly to bring an action based on common law contract. On the same day, he filed this Sec. 301 action in district court against the Inquirer claiming that he "was an employee ... within the ambit of Guild representation and within the intent and terms of the Guild-PNI [Inquirer] contracts," id. at 12, and alleging that under the terms of the Agreement he was due back pay, and that the newspaper's treatment of him had breached the Agreement (Counts I, II, III). He also made a claim for statutory wages under the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (Count IV). Id. at 12-16. It bears emphasis that the claim for back pay asserted in the federal court action tracks precisely the Guild's claim for "compensation for him" presented to the arbitrator. Id. at 97.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Inquirer determining that the arbitrator had decided that appellant did not have bargaining unit status, and that this decision rested on the plain language of the Agreement. Id. at 174-76. Alternatively, under "pure contract law," the court held that appellant was not entitled to recover for breach of contract because of the clear "intention of the parties that plaintiff [appellant] was not to be covered by the collective bargaining agreement." Id. at 176-78. Appellant moved for reconsideration, arguing that the arbitrator did not rule on his status as a bargaining unit member; that if she did, the ruling was not rationally derived from the agreement; and that appellant had stated personal claims cognizable under Sec. 301. Id. at 182-203. The district court denied this motion and plaintiff has appealed.

II.

Koshatka argues before us that the district court erred by holding that the arbitrator's ruling on the arbitrability of his complaint barred his Sec. 301 action. He also contends that he should not be required to exhaust the arbitration process because he was not within the bargaining unit to which the collective bargaining agreement applied. Finally, he argues that the district court erred by ruling on the common law contract issue, and that this ruling will prejudice him in a state court common law contract action.

We begin by stating our well-settled standard of review of summary judgment: on review, an appellate court must apply the same test that the district court should have utilized initially, and must determine whether "no genuine issue as to a material fact remains for trial, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Goodman v. Mead Johnson & Co., 534 F.2d 566, 573 (3d Cir.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 732, 50 L.Ed.2d 748 (1977). In applying the law to undisputed facts, as here, our review of a grant of summary judgment is plenary. Id. at 573-74.

However, in this case Koshatka is appealing from the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. A motion for reconsideration is properly treated as a motion under Rule 59(e), F.R.Civ.P., to alter or amend the judgment. Huff v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 675 F.2d 119, 122-23 & n. 5 (6th Cir.1982). Although the appropriate standard of review for a motion to reconsider is generally whether the district court abused its discretion, if the court's denial was based upon the interpretation and application of a legal precept, review is plenary. See Huff, 675 F.2d at 122-23 n. 5; 6A J. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice p 59.15 (2d ed. 1984); see also, Cowger v. Arnold, 460 F.2d 219, 220 (3d Cir.1972) (Rule 59(a) motion for a new trial also reviewed on basis of underlying final judgment). Here, because the district court's denial of appellant's motion to reconsider was based upon proper determination of the law in granting the defendant summary judgment, review of this denial is plenary. We now turn to the merits of appellant's contentions.

III.

Appellant first argues that the district court erred by holding that the arbitrator's ruling on the arbitrability of the Guild's grievance barred the Sec. 301 complaint. Our examination of this issue involves two components. Initially, we must determine whether the district court correctly upheld the arbitrator's ruling that the Guild's grievance was arbitrable. Only then must we consider whether the arbitration action pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement barred the Sec. 301 suit.

A.

We have stated previously that because of the strong federal policy favoring the private...