Nat'l Star Route Mail Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv.
| Decision Date | 19 December 2016 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 16-2350 (CKK) |
| Citation | 223 F.Supp.3d 14 |
| Parties | NATIONAL STAR ROUTE MAIL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
David Paul Hendel, Brian Paul Waagner, Husch Blackwell, LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Jason Todd Cohen, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Michael Timothy Anderson, Murphy Anderson PLLC, Washington, DC, for American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO.
This case arises out of the U.S. Postal Service's incipient efforts to comply with an arbitration decision and award that resolved a grievance by the American Postal Workers Union relating to the Postal Service's award of private contracts for transport of the mail without prior notice to the Union. Having found that the Postal Service had engaged in willful, "wholesale and repeated violations of its obligations" to the Union under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the arbitrator ordered the Postal Service to convert the 110 disputed routes (or other routes as agreed to with the Union) to routes to be staffed by Union members; the arbitration award allows the Postal Service six months, or until February 18, 2017, which can be extended by agreement, to complete this conversion. U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL–CIO , Case No. Q06C–4Q–C 11182451, at *16, 20 (Aug. 18, 2016) (Das, Arb.) ("Arbitration Award").1
Among the contracts addressed in the Arbitration Award are those held by members of the National Star Route Mail Contractors Association ("Plaintiff" or "Plaintiff Association"). On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action and on December 2, 2016, requested expedited hearing upon its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Postal Service "from taking any action to implement the portion of the August 18, 2016 [,] arbitration award that directs the Postal Service to Terminate up to 110 highway mail transportation routes currently served by contractors so that the routes may be served by Postal Service employees." Pl. Mot. for TRO & PI at 1.
Before the Court are Plaintiff's [6] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and the [14] Motion to Dismiss by Defendant United States Postal Service ("USPS" or "Postal Service"), in which [15] Intervenor American Postal Workers Union AFL-CIO ("APWU" or "Union") joins. Defendant Postal Service has submitted its Motion to Dismiss simultaneously with its [13] Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and relies on the same Memorandum of Points and Authorities to support both its Opposition and its Motion to Dismiss. Intervenor APWU similarly relies on the same arguments and authorities in support of its joinder in Defendant Postal Service's Motion to Dismiss as in its [11] Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. Also before the Court is Plaintiff's [16] Reply in support of its Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. While captioned by Plaintiff solely as a "reply," the Court also considers it as Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; Plaintiff addresses the jurisdictional and other substantive arguments that Defendant and Intervenor submit in support of their Motion to Dismiss, and the Court further notes that during the Status Hearing held by teleconference on December 5, 2016, the Court also raised jurisdictional questions and requested, in particular, that the parties address the justiciability questions of standing and ripeness in their briefing. The Court, in an exercise of its discretion, does not find it necessary to call for a reply from Defendant or Intervenor in further support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and deems both Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Intervenor's joinder therein fully briefed and ripe for adjudication.
Upon consideration of the pleadings,2 the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court GRANTS Defendant's [14] and Intervenor's [15] Motion to Dismiss and DENIES Plaintiff's [6] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction. The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter. First, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring these claims, which are not yet ripe for adjudication. Additionally, to the extent that these claims may be brought at some future time, jurisdiction is vested in the United States Court of Federal Claims. Lacking jurisdiction over the matter, the Court does not address Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on the merits, as it lacks the authority to grant such relief.
Accordingly, the Court shall DISMISS this action in its entirety as follows: Plaintiff's claims are hereby dismissed WITH PREJUDICE in this court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Contract Disputes Act; on this record, Plaintiff's claims as to contracts held by contractors who are not members of Plaintiff Association are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE for lack of standing; Plaintiff's claims, however, are dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE, insofar as Plaintiff shall not be barred by this Order from seeking relief in the proper forum should Plaintiff be able to establish standing in the future if its claims become ripe for adjudication; and finally the Court shall DENY WITH PREJUDICE in this court Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, but Plaintiff shall not be barred by this Order from seeking such relief in the appropriate forum.
Because Plaintiff's claims arise out of the Postal Service's initial considerations of how it will implement the Arbitration Award, the Court shall only briefly set out the history that led up to the Arbitration Award. It is important, nonetheless, to begin with the general framework of the Postal Service's relationship with the two separate groups that provide mail transportation services, background facts upon which both parties agree.
Throughout its history, the Postal Service has relied upon both private contractors and postal employees to fulfill its mission of delivering the mail. Routes serviced by private contractors are called Highway Contract Routes ("HCR"), and Plaintiff is an association that represents certain HCR contract holders. Corr. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 11. Routes serviced by postal employees are referred to as Postal Vehicle Service ("PVS") routes. Corr. Compl. ¶ 12. The Postal Reorganization Act ("PRA" or "Act") specifically provides for HCR contracts, authorizing the Postal Service to obtain mail transportation services "by contract from any person or carrier ... under such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate." 39 U.S.C. § 5005(a)(3). The Act further provides that such HCR contracts are to be awarded for a term no longer than four years (unless deemed "advisable or appropriate" by the Postal Service) and only "after advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals" to allow for a competitive bidding process. Id. at § 5005(b)(1). Furthermore, in determining whether to service a particular route by HCR or PVS, the Postal Service "shall use the mode of transportation which best serves the public interest, due consideration being given to the cost of the transportation service under each mode." Id. at § 5005(c). The standard terms incorporated into HCR contracts, including those implicated in this matter, contain provisions that allow for termination for convenience or termination upon notice. See Corr. Compl. ¶ 25. See also USPS Opp'n at 3; Id. at Ex. 2, Att. A *17; Id. at Ex. 2, Att. B *28; Id. at Ex. 2, Att. E *30; Id. at Ex. 2, Att. F *27. On the record before the Court, no contracts addressed by the Arbitration Award require the Postal Service to provide cause before terminating an HCR contract. Rather, as long as the Postal Service provides the required notice, which the parties submit is typically a period of sixty days, it is permitted to exercise its bargained-for right under the contract to terminate an HCR contract without indemnification or penalty. See Pl. Mot. TRO & PI at 15; Pl. Reply at 14.
Drivers on PVS routes are members of the American Postal Workers Union, Corr. Compl. ¶ 12, and their labor relationship with the Postal Service is governed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, entered into by the Union and the Postal Service and referred to as the National Agreement. See Union Opp'n, Ex.1. The National Agreement includes provisions by which the Postal Service must abide—in addition to the statutory provisions of the Postal Reorganization Act—when determining whether to designate routes for service by HCR contracts or PVS. Article 32.2.A of the National Agreement echoes § 5005(c) of the Postal Reorganization Act and reads:
The American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO, and the United States Postal Service recognize the importance of service to the public and cost to the Postal Service in selecting the proper mode for the highway movement of mail. In selecting the means to provide such transportation the Postal Service will give due consideration to public interest, cost, efficiency, availability of equipment, and qualification of employees.
Arbitration Award at *4. The National Agreement also stands to assure the Union an opportunity to participate in the bidding process before the Postal Service awards private contracts through its "Notice Requirements," set out in Article 32.2.B and C. See Arbitration Award at *4-5. Under these provisions, the Postal Service must provide the Union, at the National level, with at least sixty days' notice and specified information before renewing or installing a new HCR contract for any route; during that period, the Union has a guaranteed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. U.S. Agency for Global Media
...and constitutional, could fall within the Contract Disputes Act's ambit. See, e.g., Nat'l Star Mail Route Contractors Ass'n v. U.S. Postal Serv. , 223 F. Supp. 3d 14, 33 & n.14 (D.D.C. 2016) (noting that a cause of action "on the contract," and therefore precluded by the Contract Disputes A......