Teamsters Local Union No. 639 v. Transdev Servs.

• Docket Number: Civil Action 23-780-PJM
• Decision Date: 22 November 2023
• Parties: TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 639, Plaintiff, v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC. Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maryland

1

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 639, Plaintiff, v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC.Defendant.

Civil Action No. 23-780-PJM

United States District Court, D. Maryland

November 22, 2023

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PETER J. MESSITTE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Teamsters Local UnionNo. 639(the “Union”) has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment(ECF No. 19).Transdev Services Inc. has filed a Motion to Stay Case and Remand to Arbitration or, in the Alternative, to Permit Its Use of Expert Evidence (ECF No. 24).Both Motions are fully briefed (seeECF Nos. 23, 25, 27, 30).Based on the parties' submissions, the Court finds that a hearing is unnecessary.SeeD. Md. LocalR. 105.6.For the reasons provided below the Court will DENY Transdev's Motion to Stay Case and Remand to Arbitration or, in the Alternative, to Permit Its Use of Expert Evidence (ECF No. 24) and GRANT the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment(ECF No. 19). .

BACKGROUND

The factual and procedural backgrounds described in both Motions are substantially the same.Accordingly, the Court recounts the facts relating to the Union's Motion for Summary Judgment(ECF No. 19).

I.The Parties, Their Agreement, the Termination of Sablan, and the Arbitration Award

The Union is an unincorporated labor organization that serves as the “exclusive bargaining representative of certain drivers, mechanics, dispatchers, gatekeepers, and utility employees” employed by Transdev, including Stephen Sablan.SeeECF No. 1(Complaint)¶¶ 4, 6;ECFNo. 19-2(Union Mot.) at 2.

Transdev is a corporation incorporated in Delaware that is licensed to do business in the State of Maryland and as such operates the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”)'s MetroAccess program.Union Motionat 2;ECF No. 8(Transdev Answer)¶ 4.“MetroAccess provides transportation and paratransit services to elderly and disabled individuals in Maryland and the Washington, D.C. area.”Transdev Answer¶ 4;Union Mot.at 2;ECFNo. 19-3(Clark Decl.)¶ 4.

On March 21,2023, the Union filed this action under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act(“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, on behalf of Sablan to enforce a favorable arbitration award stemming from Sablan's grievance with his employer, Transdev.SeeComplaint¶¶ 1,12, 13.

At all relevant times, the Union and Transdev have been parties to a collective bargaining agreement (the “Agreement”) that sets forth the terms and conditions of employment for all Union members working for Transdev.SeeClarkDecl. ¶ 5;Transdev Answer¶ 8.Among other things, the Agreement establishes the procedures that Transdev must use when it disciplines, suspends, or terminates a Union Member.SeeClarkDecl. ¶¶ 6-15;ECF No. 23 (Transdev Opp'n)at 5.One of the conditions of the Agreement provides that Union members who believe they have been disciplined, suspended, or terminated in violation of the Agreement must register their complaint through a grievance and arbitration procedure.SeeClarkDecl. ¶ 10;see alsoECFNo. 19-5(Ex. 1 to the Union's Mot. for Sum.J.)(the “Agreement”)at 11.

This condition, Article 16 of the Agreement, provides that if “no satisfactory settlement” between the Union and Transdev can be reached according to internal processes, “the parties shall select a mutually agreeable and impartial Arbitrator within ten (10) working days after disagreement.”Agreement, art. 16, § 2.If “the position of the Union is sustained, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to all the benefits of this Agreement which would have accrued to him had there been no grievance.”Id.§ 3.“[A] decision of the Arbitrator will be final and binding on all parties and the employee involved.”Id.§ 4.

On April 8,2021, Transdev terminated Sablan for his alleged failure to pass a drug test.SeeECFNo. 19-4(Sablan Decl.)¶ 3;Transdev Opp'nat 5.Following Sablan's termination, the Union initiated a grievance proceeding on his behalf, alleging that Sablan's termination violated the parties' Agreement.SeeSablanDecl. ¶ 5;Transdev Opp'nat 5.This eventually led to arbitration, which concluded on November 29, 2022, with a determination by the parties' chosen arbitrator, Kathleen Jones Spilker.Arbitrator Spilker concluded that Transdev did, indeed, violate the Agreement.SablanDecl. ¶¶ 5-7;seeECFNo. 19-12(Ex. 8 to the Union's Mot. for Sum.J.)(“Arbitration Decision”).As a remedy, Arbitrator Spilker directed that Sablan be reinstated with back pay from the date of his discharge, “less any benefits received from Unemployment .Compensation or other interim employment”(the “Award”).Arbitration Decisionat 17.

II.Post-Award Events

Sablan was reinstated in early December 2022.SablanDecl.. ¶ 8;ClarkDecl. ¶ 29;Transdev Opp'nat 5.Shortly thereafter, Transdev's general manager sent Sablan an “Information Request” letter, asking Sablan to provide “evidence of [his] efforts to mitigate damages, as well as payments [he] earned from other sources, including other employment and unemployment compensation,” • which, Transdev claimed, “must be presented to the arbitrator.”ECFNo. 23-1at 1.Among other things, Transdev sought “[a]ny and all information arid documents regarding any newspapers, trade publications, periodicals, magazines . . . internet job site, web site, search engine, or other internet means” that Sablan “consulted or utilized in any way for the period March 5, 2021 to the present in any attempt to find any employment.”Id. at 2.Transdev also sought “[c]opies of any and all resumes” that Sablan prepared during his period of termination, “[c]opies of any and all federal, state, and local tax returns . . . filed by [Sablan] for tax years 2021 through the present” and “[a]ll records of visits to Local 639 and use of any referral procedures available through Local 639 since March 5,-2021.”Id. at 2-3.

Following Transdev's Information Request letter, counsel for the parties engaged in prolonged and not entirely lucid discussions regarding the propriety of Transdev's information requests and the Union's obligation to provide information regarding Sablan's mitigation of damages.SeeUnion Mot.at 5-6;Transdev Opp'nat 5-10.To summarize: the Union refused to provide the requested information and documents.Instead, counsel for the Union and Sablan asserted in a letter dated January 20, 2023(which Transdev claims to not have received until April) that Sablan received $10,940 in interim earnings and no unemployment benefits, which translated to a back pay demand of $76,472 to compensate Sablan for the pay he lost during his improper termination.SeeTransdev Opp'nat 6-7;ClarkDecl. ¶ 29(“[T]he Union's January 20, 2023 letter to the Employer states that Transdev owes Mr. Sablan $76,472.00 under the Arbitrator's Award ($87,412.00 in back pay, less $10,940.00 in interim earnings and $0.00 in unemployment compensation).”).Shortly thereafter, Sablan asserted that he discovered that he had made an . “accounting error” in his previous calculation of his interim earnings, and he had in fact earned $11,356 from interim employment.ClarkDecl. ¶ 30;SablanDecl. ¶ 9;Transdev Opp'nat 9.That is, Sablan says he learned that he earned more in interim employment than initially believed, such that his back pay demand to Transdev was reduced by $416.

Transdev has refused to remit any amount of back pay to Sablan at any time.

III.Proceedings Before the Court

As noted, supra, the Union filed suit in this Court on March 21, 2023, to enforce the Award under Section 301 of the LMRA.See Complaint.The Court entered a Scheduling Order (ECF No. 16) on April 25, 2023, which gave the parties four-and-a-half months for discovery, with a cut off for discovery on September 5, 2023.

During this discovery period, neither party filed any motions seeking to compel the production of documents or other information from the other party.On August 31, 2023, Transdev filed a Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (ECF No. 20), in which Transdev stated that it intended to issue a subpoena for the deposition of Sablan and requested time to conduct the deposition.Transdev's Motion also noted that it had propounded written discovery on the Union on August 23, 2023.SeeECF No. 20at 1.The Court denied Transdev's Motion in an Order datedSeptember 26, 2023(ECF No. 26), holding that Transdev's Motion was “too little, too late,” and that Transdev failed to establish the “good cause” required for the extension of discovery deadlines under its Scheduling Order and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure6(b)(1)(A).

The present Motions followed.

DISCUSSION

I. Transdev's Motion to Stay Case and Remand to Arbitration or, in the Alternative, to Permit Its Use of Expert Evidence,

Arbitration is highly favored as a means of resolving labor disputes.As the Fourth Circuit has observed, arbitration is “a major factor in achieving industrial peace, a vital force in establishing confidence and minimizing confusion at all levels of the labor-management relationship and a major constructive force in the collective bargaining process itself.”Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R Co. v. Transp. Commc'ns Int'l Union, 973 F.2d276, 278(4th Cir.1992).Among other virtues, arbitration furthers the interests of the swift and inexpensive resolution of labor disputes, Cannelton Indus., Inc. v. Mine Workers Dist. 17 Local 8843,951 F.2d 591, 595(4th Cir.1992), honoring the reliability and predictability of dispute resolution procedures that labor and management bargain for in collective bargaining agreements, Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.,363 U.S. 593, 599(1960), and the bedrock principle of finality of an arbitrator's decision on the merits of a dispute, United...