UNITED MINE WKRS., DIST. 4 v. Cyprus Emerald Res.
Decision Date | 03 March 1988 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 87-1650. |
Citation | 681 F. Supp. 271 |
Parties | UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 4, and Local Union 2258 United Mine Workers of America, Plaintiffs, v. CYPRUS EMERALD RESOURCES CORPORATION t/d/b/a Emerald Mines Company, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
James C. Kuhn, III, Melvin P. Stein, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.
Henry Ingram, Thomas C. Reed, Buchanan, Ingersoll, P.C., Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.
Presently before us is defendant Cyprus Emerald Resources Corporation's ("Cyprus") motion to dismiss this action on the grounds that (1) this court lacks jurisdiction; (2) the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and (3) the applicable limitations period for this action has elapsed.
Cyprus installed a computer monitoring and control system ("computer system") at its mine in 1980. The computer system gathers and displays, on a computer screen, data concerning the operation of underground conveyor belts, fans, and carbon monoxide levels in the mine. The data are monitored, and useful information, such as reports of malfunctions, may be communicated to personnel elsewhere in the mine, who may then take appropriate action. The underlying dispute involves the allocation of the duty to monitor the computer, and communicate the data to underground workers.
There has been a series of arbitration awards leading up to this action. Plaintiff, United Mineworkers of America, District 4 and Local Union 2258 ("Union"), initially argued before Arbitrator Robert A. Creo in 1983 that the operation and monitoring of the computer system fell entirely within the duties reserved to bargaining unit employees under the Union's contract. The National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1984, Article IA, Sections (a) & (b), provides that certain tasks are reserved to Union personnel:
The language of the contract in force at the time of Arbitrator Creo's decision was virtually identical to the language of the 1984 contract in effect at the time this action was commenced (the most recent contract went into effect in January, 1988). See First Creo Arbitration Award, at 7 (Oct. 14, 1983).
Arbitrator Creo held that the Union contract did allocate to bargaining unit personnel the right to monitor the computer system for information about conditions in the mine, and to report the information to other employees working underground. First Creo Arbitration Award, at 12-13. Arbitrator Creo reasoned that:
Subsequently, Cyprus installed an additional computer screen at the "Hoist House," where the Union "Hoist operator" could monitor the system with the aid of an audible alarm. In the event of a malfunction, the Hoist operator could alert the appropriate operators and cancel the alarm message on the screen. Management employees retained control of access to the computer through a keyboard located some distance from the Hoist House, and continued to receive data through a separate computer screen and printer. Second Creo Arbitration Award, at 2 (August 30, 1984).
The Union then petitioned to gain control of keyboard access and the printer, arguing that these were an integral part of the monitoring system, and should be under exclusive Union control. Arbitrator Creo disagreed, and offered the following clarification of his earlier award:
Although there is language in the Opinion of October 14, 1983 susceptible to the broad interpretation advocated by the Union, the Award is, however, limited to monitoring and communicating functions. The Arbitrator found an infringement in negotiated work jurisdiction when salaried personnel were exclusively monitoring the belt system and telephoning production personnel to advise them on malfunctions. The Arbitrator was persuaded and convinced that this was identical to a non-computer system such as electrical lights, video cameras or television screens. In terms of the purpose and end result, no significant difference between a computer based technology and a more traditional technology exist regarding monitoring functions. The Arbitrator finds that neither the keyboard nor the printouts are vital aspects of the monitoring function nor within UMWA jurisdiction. The system as presently constituted does not violate the work jurisdiction of the Union. The operating procedures now in effect are functioning as the eyes, ears and voice. Immediate access to the printout as memory is not such an integral aspect of the monitoring functions as to require an on-site printer. Access to the keyboard and programming is clearly technical in nature and beyond the scope of the original Award of October 14, 1983.
Second Creo Arbitration Award, at 3. Arbitrator Creo thus approved the dual-screen computer system.
The computer system continued to be a point of contention, however. The Union initiated further grievance procedures in 1985, alleging that management personnel were preempting the monitoring function allocated to bargaining unit personnel. Arbitrator Samuel S. Stone issued a decision on June 30, 1986. Arbitrator Stone made clear that Arbitrator Creo's reasoning encompassed the monitoring and communication of data from fans and carbon monoxide levels, in addition to the data from the belt system. Stone Arbitration Award, at 20 (June 30, 1986). Arbitrator Stone reasoned that:
It is the nature of the work performed and not the equipment used to perform the work which determines work jurisdiction. The monitoring work involved is work that replaces functions performed by classified i.e. Union Employees manually previously. The monitoring work is not technical or complex. The Employer can certainly reduce the number of classified Employees by employing computer capabilities; however, it cannot remove the underlying functions from the exclusive work jurisdiction of classified Employees. Classified Employees have exclusive work jurisdiction over the monitoring functions performed by them previously. The fact that an appropriate job title is not contained in the appropriate Appendix to the National Agreement is irrelevant.
Id. at 21. Arbitrator Stone emphasized this point and then explained that the line between the provinces of Union and non-Union personnel is not always clear:
Id. at 23. Arbitrator Stone's award ordered Cyprus to "cease allowing supervisory Employees to monitor belts, fans and carbon monoxide and communicate information concerning same to the extent same replaces those functions performed by classified Employees previously." Id.
The dispute was subsequently revived before Arbitrator David T. Kennedy, when Cyprus decided to eliminate the Hoist Operator position on the second shift because there was no need for hoisting on that shift. The Union initiated a grievance procedure. Arbitrator Kennedy identified three issues before him:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cooley v. US
... ... UNITED STATES of America, Defendant ... Nos ... while working in an underground coal mine operated by their employer, the Grundy Mining ... (Court File No. 4). Defendant contends, inter alia, that this ... ...
-
Rowry v. University of Michigan, Docket Nos. 91292
...time "it becomes evident that one of the parties is violating or ignoring the decision." United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 4 v. Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp., 681 F.Supp. 271, 278 (W.D.Pa.1988).10 In Walkerville, the panel adopted a six-month limitation period in an action to enforce a......
-
Service Employees Intern. Union Local 36, AFL-CIO v. City Cleaning Co., Inc., AFL-CIO
...implementation of national policies." Id. City Cleaning urges us to follow the rationale of United Mineworkers District 4 v. Cyprus Emerald Resources Corporation, 681 F.Supp. 271 (W.D.Pa.1988). In Cyprus Emerald, the district court determined that because Pennsylvania had eliminated its spe......
-
Apperson v. Fleet Carrier Corp.
...District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.1 See, e.g., United Mine Workers of America, District 4 v. Cyprus Emerald Resources Corp., 681 F.Supp. 271 (W.D.Pa.1988) (discussing whether hybrid and pure employee Sec. 301 actions require different limitations ...