United Ass'n of Journeymen v. Intern. Maint. Co., CIV.A. 02-CV-635.
| Decision Date | 25 October 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 02-CV-635.,CIV.A. 02-CV-635. |
| Citation | 251 F.Supp.2d 1296 |
| Parties | UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL-CIO, v. INTERNATIONAL MAINTENANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Louisiana |
Louis L. Robein, Jr., Robein, Urann & Lurye, Metairie, LA, for Plaintiffs.
William R. D'Armond, Kean, Miller, Hawthorne, D'Armond, McCowan & Jarman, Baton Rouge, LA, for Def
RULINGS ON MOTION TO CONFIRM CONTRACTUAL GRIEVANCE AWARD AND ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
These matters are before the court on a motion and amended motion to confirm contractual grievance award by United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFCIO ("UA"), plaintiff, against defendant, International Maintenance Company, L.L.C. ("IMC") (docs. 2 and 15); a motion for summary judgment by defendant against plaintiff (doc. 9); and a cross-motion for summary judgment by plaintiff against defendant (doc. 25). All motions are opposed. Jurisdiction is based upon the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), § 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185.1
The following facts material to IMC's motion for summary judgment now before the court are taken from the Statement of Material Facts submitted by defendant (doc. 10). The court allows these facts to serve as its own statement of the case.2 Plaintiffs exceptions to certain paragraphs are noted where appropriate (doc. 26):
1. IMC is a general contractor engaged in the industrial construction and maintenance business. It is part of the Turner Industries family of companies.
2. IMC has had a contract with W.R. Grace & Company since 1983 to perform maintenance services at the W.R. Grace industrial plant in Lake Charles, Louisiana. The hourly employees on that job are covered by a collective bargaining agreement between IMC and fourteen building and construction trades unions. The general presidents (international presidents) of each of these unions, or their designees, form what is known as the General Presidents' Committee. On behalf of the international unions, the Committee enters into labor contracts with various contractors who do industrial maintenance work. These contracts are entered into on a job site by job site or "project" basis. These contracts are known as "General Presidents' Agreements." The ones applicable to work performed within Louisiana are commonly referred to as "Orange Books," and the ones applicable to job sites outside of Louisiana are commonly referred to as "Blue Books." These nicknames derive from the color of the paper on which the contracts are printed. Since 1983, IMC has had an Agreement, or "Orange Book," covering its work at the W.R. Grace Facility in Lake Charles. The local unions of the signatory international unions are not parties to the collective bargaining agreement and do not participate in its negotiation. They do, however, play a role in the administration of the contract, including the processing of grievances.
3. The Agreement contains a grievance and arbitration procedure in Article VII. Step I is a meeting between the aggrieved employee and/or his onsite union representative (union steward) and the employee's immediate supervisor. Step II is between an international union representative and the contractor's labor relations manager. Step III calls for a decision by the Committee. There are no company representatives on the Committee; it is comprised solely of union representatives. Step IV is impartial arbitration under the procedures of the FMCS.
Plaintiff excepts to this paragraph, to the extent that it refers to the fact that the Committee is composed solely of union representatives. Plaintiff maintains that such statement is irrelevant and immaterial.
4. The grievance and arbitration procedure in the collective bargaining agreement is as follows:
1. All grievances that may arise on any work covered by this Agreement must be filed within five (5) working days after the occurrence of events giving rise to the grievance, and shall be handled in the following manner:
Step I:
Between the aggrieved employee and/or the on-site Representative and the employee's immediate on-site Staff Supervisor. It is understood that the on-site Representative shall have permission to phone the office of the Administrator of the General Presidents' Maintenance Committee for guidance in any situation that may arise during working hours. On grievances involving disciplinary action against employees or disputes relative to local wages and fringe benefits applicable under this Agreement, a representative of the Local Union shall be included in Step I.
Step II:
Between an International Union Representative and the Labor Relations Manager of the Contractor.
Step III:
1. If the grievance is not satisfactorily settled within five (5) working days after the start of Step II, the information prepared for Step II plus any other supplemental information, facts, or positions developed in Step II shall be submitted in wiring to the General Presidents' Committee within five (5) days.
2. The General Presidents' Committee shall render its decision with[in] ten (10) days after receipt of the grievance from Step II. In the event that the affected Union or Contractor does not accept the decision of the General Presidents' Committee, either party may appeal within ten (10) days to an Impartial Arbitrator.
Step TV:
1. Within five (5) days after the grievance has been referred to Step IV, the parties shall apply to the United States Mediation and Conciliation Service for the services of an Arbitrator in accordance with established rules of said services. The Impartial Arbitrator shall only have jurisdiction and authority to determine the meaning, application of, or compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and shall not have jurisdiction or authority to add or detract from or alter in any way such provisions.
2. In arbitration proceedings, the expenses of the Impartial Arbitrator shall be shared equally by the parties.
3. The findings of the Arbitrator shall be binding on both parties.
5. McKnight was employed by IMC on the W.R. Grace Facility as a pipefitter. On August 16, 2001, he was discharged for violation of company policy—specifically, falsification of documents at hire.
Plaintiff excepts to this paragraph. While plaintiff does not dispute the fact that McKnight was discharged, the UA notes that the reason given on the Termination Notice was "failure to disclose preexisting back condition on second inquiry form." In addition, plaintiff regards this assertion as immaterial.
6. On August 21, 2001, Local 106 notified IMC by facsimile that it was filing a Step I grievance protesting the discharge of McKnight.
7. On August 24, 2001, the Step I meeting was held, the grievance was discussed, but no agreement was reached.
8. On August 27, 2001, Local 106 notified IMC by facsimile that it was advancing to Step II.
9. On September 10, 2001, a Step II meeting was held, but no agreement was reached.
10. On October 1, 2001, UA moved the grievance to Step III—the Committee level.
11. On October 1, 2001, Kaczorowski,3 Administrator of the Committee, notified IMC by facsimile that the matter had been placed on the agenda for the regular Step III meeting of the Committee to be held at 9:00 a.m Wednesday, October 10, 2001, at the IBEW offices in Washington, D.C.
12. On October 10, 2001, Guitreau and McCall appeared at the IBEW offices in Lake Charles for the Step III meeting. McCall had misread the notice of the Step III meeting and erroneously thought that the meeting was to be held in Lake Charles. When the error was discovered that morning, Guitreau faxed a letter to the Committee stating that he had missed the meeting, denying the grievance, submitting some basic documents, and stating that he was out of town but "will talk with you in a couple of days to arrange another meeting."
Plaintiff excepts to this paragraph. Guitreau's letter and its attachment were sent by facsimile to Kaczorowski, whose office is in a different building in Washington, D.C. from where the Step III meeting was held. To the extent that defendant's Statement of Facts implies that the Committee timely received Guitreau's letter and documents, plaintiff notes that the Administrator did not discover Guitreau's facsimile until he returned to his office after the Step III meeting had concluded. Moreover, plaintiff asserts that these statements are immaterial.
13. On October 10, 2001, Guitreau was notified that the Committee had gone forward with the case and had upheld UA's grievance.
14. On October 10, 2001, Guitreau faxed another letter to the Committee stating that its decision "is not acceptable," and that "we can either present our facts at a rescheduled third step or we can proceed to arbitration."
Plaintiff makes the same exception as that made to Paragraph 12, and notes that Guitreau's second facsimile was sent to the Administrator at his office, after the conclusion of the Committee meeting.
15. On October 16, 2001, the Committee notified IMC and UA in writing that the Committee had sustained Local 106's grievance and ordered McKnight reinstated with back wages and benefits from August 16, 2001, the date of discharge.
16. On October 29, 2001, the Committee wrote to IMC, referred to the contract provisions dealing with arbitration, and stated that it was forwarding a copy of Guitreau's letter (no date mentioned, but reference was to second October 10 letter) to Local 106 "notifying them of your decision to proceed to arbitration."
17. In an undated letter whose context indicates that it was sent in late November, Local 106 notified UA that it had spoken with Guitreau by telephone on November 20 and that Guitreau said that IMC was not going to pay back wages and doctor bills "without an...
To continue reading
Request your trial