Monongalia Cnty. Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am.
| Decision Date | 23 September 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-176 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia |
| Parties | The MONONGALIA COUNTY COAL COMPANY, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, INTERNATIONAL UNION, and United Mine Workers of America, Local Union 1702, Defendants/Counter-Claimants. |
Michael D. Glass, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC, Pittsburgh, PA, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant.
Kevin F. Fagan, Associate General Counsel, Triangle, VA, for Defendants/Counter-Claimants.
Pending before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment filed by the Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant, The Monongalia 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 1702 (together, the "Union" or "Defendants"). For the reasons discussed below, the Court denies Defendants' Motion and grants Plaintiff's motion.
On September 11, 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 Monongalia County Mine, an underground coal mine, most of which is located 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. 11-1 at 10–11. The agreement distinguishes between (1) Repair and Maintenance Work and (2) Construction Work. The "Scope and Coverage" of Construction Work is as follows:
The NBCWA also provides:
All decisions of the Arbitration Review Board rendered prior to the expiration of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1978 shall continue to have precedential effect under this Agreement to the extent that the basis for such decisions have not been modified by subsequent changes in this agreement.
The dispute leading to this litigation involves work performed at the Monongalia County Mine on February 25, 2018. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 8. On that day, Plaintiff hired contractors to install supplemental roof support at the mine. Id. On February 28, 2018, the Union filed a grievance (the "Grievance") on behalf of four (4) of its members (the "Grievants"), alleging that Plaintiff violated the NBCWA by hiring a contractor to perform classified work. Id. The Grievants stated that "[c]lassified men have allways [sic] done this work" and requested "48 hours of double time rate of pay and for this practice to cease and desist and be made whole in all ways." ECF No. 11-4 at 7.
On May 17, 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 15, 2018, in which he sustained the Grievance. Id. ¶ 10. The Award includes a Statement of Facts, summaries of the parties' positions, the Arbitrator's Opinion, his Findings, and the Award. ECF No. 11-4 at 6–10.
In the Award, the Arbitrator found that "there was no prior practice of contractors building the wooden cribs of the type involved in this case." Id. at 8. He further wrote that different types of roof support systems are categorized differently with regard to work jurisdiction. Id. The Arbitrator then discussed an employer's limits in subcontracting pursuant to Article 1A, subsection (i). Without specifically finding that Plaintiff engaged in this activity, he wrote that if an employer "regulates/reduces the size of the workforce" and then assigns work that cannot be completed by classified employees within the prescribed time limit, the employer is "circumventing the intent of the contract" and creating an " ‘impossibility of performance’ situation." Id.
The Arbitrator took issue with Judge Keeley's definition of construction work in Monongalia County Coal Co. v. UMWA, 234 F. Supp. 3d 797 (N.D.W. Va. 2017) (the "2017 Decision"), and Plaintiff's interpretation of the decision. He wrote that under Judge Keeley's interpretation of "construction" work, "nearly all work is construction and consequently may be contracted out if current employees are fully employed and working at no less than five (5) days per week." Id. at 9. The Arbitrator wrote that "[i]t appears there may be a concerted effort to abridge the rights of employees by utilizing sub-contractors to perform classified work." Id. He wrote that "it cannot possibly be the intent of the parties to apply the word ‘construction’ when the result is loss of jurisdictional, protected work to contractors." Id.
The Arbitrator found that "[r]oof support in general is work ‘in the production of coal’ but has been treated differently by different arbitrators." Id. at 8. He wrote that the work at issue is "protected classified work" that "has not been subject to contracting out since it became signatory to the NBCWA." Id. at 9. As such, it "is not construction work per se[.]" Id. at 10. Therefore, Article 1A, subsection (i) does not apply. He wrote:
The Employer violated Article I and IA, subsection (a) as the building of wooden cribs is work closely associated with the production of coal that has exclusively been performed by classified employees, therefore, it is a contractually-protected activity and not construction work per se, which falls under Article IA, subsection (i). The four Grievants lost the opportunity to perform this protected classified work.
Id. He also found that the case fails to meet the requirements for res judicata. Id. He distinguished the case from the 2017 Decision. The 2017 Decision "involved a never-before-used pumpable bag (chemical) system," whereas "[t]he type of wooden crib roof support work at this mine has never before been performed by anyone but classified employees, has never before been performed by contractors and is therefore protected classified work." Id. "[T]here has been no change that would modify this long-accepted interpretation of the contract involving this work." Id.
In crafting a remedy, the Arbitrator wrote, "A contractual violation requires a remedy[.]" Id. Finding that the contractors worked for a total of forty-eight (48) hours, the Arbitrator awarded twelve (12) hours of pay to each of the Grievants at their regular rate of pay. Id.
Plaintiff now argues that the Court should vacate the Award because it fails to draw its essence from the contract. See ECF No. 1 at ¶ 13. This was construction work, Plaintiff argues, and contracting for construction work is permissible under the NBCWA if all employees with necessary skills are working no less than five (5) days per week. Id. ¶ 17. Plaintiff relies on the 2017 Decision, arguing that Judge Keeley cited several arbitral decisions finding that "installation of supplemental roof supports ... was construction work rather than maintenance work." Id. (citing 234 F. Supp. 3d at 806 ). Here, Plaintiff argues, the Arbitrator "explicitly rejected" binding precedent by finding that the installation of supplemental roof support is not construction work. Id. ¶ 18.
Plaintiff further argues that the monetary award issued was improper because "monetary damages may only be awarded to ‘compensate the aggrieved party...
To continue reading
Request your trial