Steris Corp. v. International Union, United Auto.

• Decision Date: 09 April 2007
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 06-83E.
• Citation: 489 F.Supp.2d 501
• Parties: STERIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

489 F.Supp.2d 501

STERIS CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 06-83E.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

April 9, 2007.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Andrew C. Meyer, Fredrick Englehart, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Cleveland, OH, Matthew W. McCullough, MacDonald, Illig, Jones & Britton, Erie, PA, for Plaintiff.

Emily A. Tidball, Joyce Goldstein, Paul F. Neil, Joyce Goldstein & Associates, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION

MAURICE B. COHILL, JR., Senior United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Steris Corporation ("Steris") has filed a verified complaint to confirm an arbitration award and for a preliminary and permanent injunction against any further attempt to re-arbitrate or re-litigate the issue addressed in that arbitration (Doc. 2). Plaintiff asks us to enjoin the arbitration of a second grievance filed by Defendants United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America Local No. 832 ("Local 832)" and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (collectively "Defendants.")

Shortly after a hearing on Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction was scheduled, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint (Doc. 25) with accompanying brief (Doc. 28). We granted the parties' joint motion to continue the hearing until after a decision on the motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs have now filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss (Doc. 34), to which Defendants have replied. (Doc. 37).

Our jurisdiction over Plaintiffs complaint is contested by this motion to dismiss. We have jurisdiction to enforce collective bargaining agreements under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Venue is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 185(c).

Having now considered the parties' submissions and the applicable law, for the reasons set forth below we will grant Defendants' motion and dismiss the complaint.

I. Background

We take the facts on a motion to dismiss from the Complaint. Plaintiff Steris Corporation ("Steris" or the "Company") manufactures sterilization equipment for the healthcare, pharmaceutical and laboratory markets. (Compl. at ¶ 1). The Company has its principal place of business in Mentor, Ohio, and one of its main manufacturing facilities is located in Erie, Pennsylvania. (Compl. at ¶¶ 1, 3).

Defendant International Union United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("International") is a labor organization within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(5), and has its principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan. (Compl. at ¶¶ 4, 5). Defendant Local Union 832 of International ("Local") is a labor organization within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 152(5), and has its principal place of business in Erie, Pennsylvania. (Compl. at ¶¶ 5, 6).

The American Arbitration Association ("AAA") was also named as a defendant. By letter dated April 19, 2006, the AAA notified the parties that it would not be appearing or otherwise participating in this litigation, and advised the parties that it was not a proper defendant. (Letter 4/19/06 Doc. 14). The AAA has not participated in briefing the issues before us.

Steris is party to a collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA" or the "Agreement") with Defendants International and Local, which is effective from June 23, 1999 to June 22, 2007. (Compl. at ¶ 10, Ex. A). The Agreement provides for a grievance procedure which culminates in final and binding arbitration. (Compl. at ¶¶ 11, 12). Article 10, Section D of the Agreement provides:

The decision of the arbitrator shall be final, conclusive and binding upon the Union, its members and all Associates covered by this Agreement, as well as the Company and no appeal therefrom shall be taken from said decision. If an arbitrator's decision requires clarification, the parties, by mutual agreement may request of the arbitrator such clarification.

(Compl. at ¶ 14, Ex. A).

On December 20, 2004, Steris issued a memorandum concerning insurance coverage for employees on leave of absence from work, which announced that the Company would no longer pay the cost of insurance benefits for employees on extended leaves of absence. (Compl. at ¶ 16, Ex. C).

On December 21, 2004, the Local filed Grievance 2004-53 (the "First Grievance") as a "policy grievance" stating "(Policy) The Company is in breach of contract and good faith bargaining (if it) the Company tries to implement the memo of December 20, 2004 concerning insurance coverage during absences," and requested that the Company "cease and decist (sic) implementation and follow contract as negotiated and has been past practice (sic) make whole all losses." (Compl. at ¶ 15, Ex. B). This grievance was processed through the contractual grievance procedure, and submitted to arbitration through the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). (Compl. at ¶ 17). Arbitrator Linda Di-Leone Klein was selected by the parties to arbitrate the dispute. (Compl. at ¶ 18).

The First Grievance was heard on July 26, 2005, and Arbitrator Klein issued her award denying Local 832's grievance on October 10, 2005. (Compl. at ¶ 18, Ex. D). She defined the issue as "[d]id the Company violate the Collective Bargaining Agreement when on December 20, 2004, it announced that it would no longer pay the cost of insurance benefits for employees on extended leaves of absence? If so, what shall the remedy be?" (Compl. at ¶ 19, Ex. D). Arbitrator Klein held that the December 20, 2004 Memo did not violate the contract. Arbitrator Klein's opinion stated "[T]he Arbitrator is of the opinion that she has no alternative but to uphold the contract as written, `overturn the practice' and allow the Company to correct any error in its prior enforcement of the contract." (Compl. at ¶ 19, Ex. D at 27).

On November 1, 2005, the Local wrote to Arbitrator Klein and requested that she clarify her Opinion. (Compl. at ¶ 20, Ex. E). On November 4, 2005, the Company responded in opposition to the Local's request for clarification. (Compl. at ¶ 21, Ex. F). Since both parties did not agree to the request for clarification, Arbitrator Klein declined to clarify her opinion. (Compl. at ¶ 22, Ex. G).

The Local did not file a petition to vacate the Arbitrator's Decision within the 30-day time frame allowed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 7314 (2005). (Compl. at ¶ 23).

On January 26, 2005, the Local filed an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), charging that the Company's implementation of its December 20, 2004 memorandum constituted a unilateral discontinuance of insurance coverage for some employees on extended absences, and charging the Company with a refusal to bargain collectively and in good faith with the Local. (Compl. at ¶ 26, Ex. H).

On February 25, 2005, the NLRB deferred processing the charge, pending the processing of the December 21, 2004 Grievance which was awaiting arbitration. (Compl. at ¶ 27, Ex. I). On October 27, 2005, after being advised that Arbitrator Klein had issued her final and binding Decision, the NLRB refused to issue a complaint and dismissed the unfair labor practice charge. (Compl. at ¶ 28, Ex. J). In that decision, the NLRB stated that:

The Arbitrator considered the issues which are factually parallel to the unfair labor practice allegation, and concluded that the Employer had not unilaterally changed an existing past practice.

(Compl. at ¶ 28, Ex. J).

The Local did not appeal the Decision of the Regional Director of the NLRB. (Compl. at ¶ 29). On October 27, 2005, Local 832 filed a filed a new grievance at No. 2005-29 (the "Second Grievance"). (Compl. at ¶ 30, Ex. K). For purposes of this motion to dismiss, the Defendants accept Plaintiffs' characterization of the Second Grievance as concerning "the exact company policy that had been upheld by Arbitrator Klein in her final and binding award, dated October 10, 2005." (Compl. at ¶ 30, Defs.' Br. Doc. 25 at 3). The Second Grievance involved the same parties, the same factual background, and the same legal issues as the case decided by Arbitrator Klein. (Compl. at ¶ 32).

The Company denied the Second Grievance at each stage of the process, on the grounds that it had already been determined in favor of the Company in the final and binding arbitration decision of Arbitrator Klein on October 10, 2005. (Compl. at ¶ 33).

The Local submitted the Second Grievance to the AAA on December 16, 2005. (Compl. at ¶ 34). On December 30, 2005, Steris responded by stating that it needed more time to review the legal issues involved. (Compl. at ¶ 36, Ex. M). On January 30, 2006, the Company asked that the AAA discontinue processing the grievance because the underlying basis of the grievance was that Arbitrator Klein exceeded her authority in rendering her award in the First Grievance. (Compl. at ¶ 37, Ex. N).

On February 13, 2006, the Local responded that the matter should proceed, stating that the Company's attempt to have the dispute terminated prior to arbitration was an abrogation of the parties' agreement to arbitrate. (Compl. at ¶ 38, Ex. O). The AAA issued a letter on February 23, 2006, stating that in the absence of an agreement by the parties or a court order staying the matter, the AAA would proceed to administer the arbitration proceedings. (Compl. at ¶ 40, Ex. P).

The Company requested a two week stay to give it an opportunity to file the appropriate pleadings. (Compl. at ¶ 41, Ex. Q). This action followed.

In Count One, the Company seeks an order confirming the arbitration decision and award entered by Arbitrator Klein on October 10, 2005, in the First Grievance.

Count Two requests a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction, permanently enjoining and staying the Defendants from proceeding with the arbitration of the Second Grievance.

In addition, Pla...