Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Intern. Union, AFL-CIO, Local 2-286 v. Amoco Oil Co. (Salt Lake City Refinery)
| Citation | 885 F.2d 697 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1989 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,No. 86-2838,LOCAL,86-2838 |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Parties | 132 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2533, 58 USLW 2259, 113 Lab.Cas. P 11,531, 1989 O.S.H.D. (CCH) P 28,665 OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,2-286, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMOCO OIL COMPANY (SALT LAKE CITY REFINERY), Defendant-Appellant. |
Arthur F. Sandack, Sandack & Sandack, Salt Lake City, Utah, for plaintiff-appellee.
Robert M. O'Connell, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Johnson & Williams, Houston, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.
Local 2-286 of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIO filed suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against Amoco Oil Company pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management and Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 (1982) (LMRA). The Union sought to enjoin Amoco's implementation of a drug testing program at its Salt Lake City refinery pending the outcome of arbitration over Amoco's right, under the parties' Collective Bargaining Agreement, to unilaterally impose the testing program. The district court granted the requested relief and Amoco appeals. We affirm.
Amoco has operated its Salt Lake City refinery for over seventy years, and has had a collective bargaining relationship with the Union for approximately forty years. The Agreement in force at the time the Union filed this suit contains broad grievance and arbitration provisions, 1 as well as a management rights clause. 2 Article 21 of the Agreement, which addresses health and safety issues, establishes a joint labor-management committee for "the purpose of considering, inspecting, investigating and reviewing health and safety conditions and practices." Rec., vol. I, doc. 1, Ex. A at 55. The committee is responsible for making constructive recommendations "including but not limited to the implementation of corrective measures to eliminate unhealthy and unsafe conditions and practices and to improve existing health and safety conditions and practices." Id. Article 21 further provides that Amoco shall continue "its existing industrial hygiene program," id. at 56, and that Amoco shall pay for physical and medical tests "at a frequency and extent determined ... by the joint committee." Id. at 54. Finally, Article 21 specifies that "[a]ny dispute arising with respect to the interpretation or application" of its provisions is subject to the Agreement's grievance and arbitration procedures. Id. at 56.
In May 1986, Amoco notified the Union that it wanted to implement a drug testing program at the Salt Lake City refinery. The Union objected to Amoco's proposal and responded with a counterproposal, but four months of negotiations failed to produce agreement about the nature and scope of the proposed testing program. Amoco therefore decided to implement a drug testing program unilaterally, and notified its employees by letter dated September 12, 1986, that it intended to do so thirty days hence. 3 In broad outline, the program requires an annual test for those "[e]mployees who, by the nature of their job, could pose an immediate safety risk to themselves, fellow employees, property, and/or the general public if working under the influence of drugs or alcohol." Rec., vol. I, doc. 1, Ex. B. The program also provides for the random testing of any employee "who, in the judgment of management may be working under the influence of drugs and alcohol or whose work performance is being adversely affected by the abuse of drugs and alcohol." Id.
The Union filed a written grievance objecting to Amoco's unilateral implementation of the new program. The grievance alleged that Amoco's action violated various provisions of the Agreement, including Article 21, and it requested that the company postpone implementation of the program pending resolution of the grievance. Notwithstanding the Union's request, Amoco implemented the policy, and ultimately denied the grievance. The Union then filed this action for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and the district court ordered Amoco to show cause why a restraining order should not issue.
At a hearing during which the district court heard testimony and received evidence, both sides agreed that the underlying dispute was arbitrable and acknowledged that they were proceeding to arbitration as called for by their Agreement. They also agreed in large measure on the applicable law. They disagreed, however, on the application of the governing law to the instant case. Amoco argued that an injunction is precluded by the jurisdictional limitations on the issuance of injunctions imposed by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 101-115 (1982). Amoco further contended that the case falls outside the exception to Norris-LaGuardia set forth in Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 1583, 26 L.Ed.2d 199 (1970), and refined in Buffalo Forge v. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, 428 U.S. 397, 96 S.Ct. 3141, 49 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1976), construing those cases as holding that injunctive relief is precluded by the Act if a dispute can be resolved through arbitration and the parties are proceeding with arbitration. Amoco acknowledged that courts may properly enjoin employer actions which threaten the arbitral process, but argued that implementation of the testing program would not make arbitration a "hollow formality" by irreparably injuring the Union's employees. The Union vigorously disagreed with these contentions.
Based on the evidence before it, the district court concluded that the Boys Markets exception was applicable because Amoco's action threatened the integrity of the arbitral process and equitable principles favored issuance of a status quo injunction. The court specifically found that the Union employees would suffer irreparable injury absent a status quo injunction because they potentially would be "humiliated," "frustrated," "stigmatized," and "embarrassed" by the testing program. Rec., vol. III, at 159. The court concluded that the Union's position was sufficiently sound to prevent arbitration from being a futile endeavor, and hence that the Union had satisfied the criterion of likelihood of success on the merits. The court also determined that the balance of harms favored issuance of an injunction and that the public interest would be served by a status quo injunction. Consequently, the court enjoined Amoco from implementing its drug testing program pending the outcome of arbitration.
Amoco raises essentially the same arguments on appeal. Its primary contention is that the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue an injunction because the case does not fit the Boys Markets exception to the Norris-LaGuardia Act. Amoco also asserts that the district court's finding of irreparable injury is neither legally sufficient to justify the injunction in this case, nor supported by the record. Finally, Amoco challenges the court's assessment that the public interest favors issuance of the injunction.
Amoco's jurisdictional challenge presents us with a question of first impression in this circuit: whether Boys Markets injunctions may issue to enjoin employer breaches of collective bargaining agreements, and if so, under what circumstances. Our inquiry does not proceed through uncharted terrain, however. A majority of circuits have addressed these issues and have established helpful and, for the most part, well-settled reference points. See, e.g., Aluminum Workers Int'l v. Consolidated Aluminum Corp., 696 F.2d 437 (6th Cir.1982); Local Lodge No. 1266 v. Panoramic Corp., 668 F.2d 276 (7th Cir.1981); United Steelworkers v. Fort Pitt Steel Casting, 598 F.2d 1273 (3d Cir.1979); Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 1384 v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 529 F.2d 1073 (9th Cir.) (Greyhound I ), vacated and remanded, 429 U.S. 807, 97 S.Ct. 43, 50 L.Ed.2d 68 (1976), rev'd, 550 F.2d 1237 (9th Cir.1977) (Greyhound II ), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 837, 98 S.Ct. 127, 54 L.Ed.2d 99 (1977); Lever Bros. Co. v. International Chemical Workers Union, Local 217, 554 F.2d 115 (4th Cir.1976); Hoh v. Pepsico, 491 F.2d 556 (2d Cir.1974).
Understanding the role of the judiciary and the proper use of injunctions in resolving labor disputes governed by collective bargaining agreements requires the consideration of several fundamental policies embedded in our national labor laws. The peaceful resolution of labor disputes through voluntary arbitration constitutes the overarching concern of national labor policy. Indeed, "[t]here is no more fundamental policy in our national labor laws." Consolidated Aluminum, 696 F.2d at 441. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. 173(d) (1982); Nolde Brothers, Inc. v. Local 358, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, 430 U.S. 243, 253, 255, 97 S.Ct. 1067, 1073, 1074, 51 L.Ed.2d 300 (1977); Steelworkers Trilogy (United Steelworkers v. American Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 80 S.Ct. 1343, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960); United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960)).
Both the Labor Management Relations Act and the Norris-LaGuardia Act contribute to the advancement of this policy. Section 301(a) of the LMRA grants district courts jurisdiction to enforce, "contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce...." 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a). This jurisdictional grant permits federal judicial enforcement of collective bargaining agreements and thereby encourages their use. See Boys Markets, 398 U.S. at 242, 245, 90 S.Ct. at 1588, 1589. The Norris-LaGuardia Act broadly prohibits the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes. Its policy against judicial interference in such disputes, see Boys Markets, 398 U.S. at 252, 90 S.Ct. at 1593; ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Tremont Pub. Advisors, LLC v. Conn. Res. Recovery Auth.
-
Jetaway Aviation, LLC v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Montrose
... ... Defendants are two local governmental entities, the Board of County ... tends to destroy competition”); see also City of Pittsburgh v. W. Penn Power Co., 147 F.3d ... v. Union" Pac. R. Co., 147 F.2d 975, 977 (10th Cir.1945) (\xE2" ... Cir.2011); see generally United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 85 S.Ct ... ...
-
Brown v. Board of Educ. of Topeka, Shawnee County, Kan.
...an erroneous view of the law or in the absence of a defined legal standard are not binding on appeal." Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers v. Amoco Oil Co., 885 F.2d 697, 710 (10th Cir.1989) (Baldock, J., dissenting and urging reversal of trial court's fact findings on grounds it applied erroneo......
-
AMERICAN FEDERATION, COUNCIL 31 v. Schwartz
...against employers to maintain the status quo in a labor dispute pending arbitration. See Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. Amoco Oil Co., 885 F.2d 697 (10th Cir. 1989); Independent Oil & Chemical Workers of Quincy, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co., 864 F.2d 927......
-
Workplace Privacy, Autonomy, and Dignity in Colorado: Part Ii
...157. 612 P.2d 1158, 1160 (Colo.App. 1980). 158. See, e.g., Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, AFL/CIO, Local 286 v. Amoco Oil Co., 885 F.2d 697, 704-05 (10th Cir. 1989); Communication Workers of AFL/CIO, CLC v. U.S. West Communications, 744 F.Supp. 1031, 1033-34 (D.Colo. 1990) (Babcoc......