United Transp. Union v. Birmingham S. R.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 March 2014
• Docket Number: CASE NO. 2:11-CV-4128-SLB
• Citation: United Transp. Union v. Birmingham S. R.R. Co., CASE NO. 2:11-CV-4128-SLB (N.D. Ala. Mar 31, 2014)
• Parties: UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Plaintiff, v. BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY; TRANSTAR, INC., Defendants. BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Counterclaim plaintiff, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION; CAROL J. ZAMPERINI, Counterclaim defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Plaintiff, v. BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY; TRANSTAR, INC., Defendants.

BIRMINGHAM SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Counterclaimplaintiff, v. UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION; CAROL J. ZAMPERINI, Counterclaimdefendants.

CASE NO. 2:11-CV-4128-SLB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

DONE: March 31, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This case is currently before the court on Motions for Summary Judgment filed by defendantTranstar, Inc., and defendant/counter claimantBirmingham Southern Railroad Company[BSR], (doc. 45),¹plaintiff/counter defendant United Transportation Union, (doc.51), and counter defendantCarol J. Zamperini, (doc. 48).Upon consideration of the record, the submissions of the parties, the arguments of counsel, and the relevant law, the court is of the opinion that Zamperini's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 48), is due to be granted, UTU's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 51), is due to be granted, and Transtar and BSR's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 45), is due to be denied.

I.SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608(11th Cir.1991);seeAdickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 157(1970).Once the moving party has met its burden, the non-moving party must go beyond the pleadings and show that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial.SeeCelotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324(1986).A dispute is genuine "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party."Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248(1986).

A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by:

(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials; or(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1);see alsoClark, 929 F.2d at 608("it is never enough simply to state that the non-moving party cannot meet its burden at trial").

In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court's function is not to "weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial."Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249."[C]ourts are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences 'in the light most favorable to the party opposing the [summary judgment] motion.'"Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378(2007)(quotingUnited States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655(1962)(per curiam)).Nevertheless, the non-moving party"need not be given the benefit of every inference but only of every reasonable inference."Graham v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 193 F.3d 1274, 1282(11th Cir.1999)(citingBrown v. City of Clewiston, 848 F.2d 1534, 1540 n.12(11th Cir.1988));see alsoScott, 550 U.S. at 380("When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.").

"The applicable Rule 56 standard is not affected by the filing of cross-motions for summary judgment."Godard v. Alabama Pilot, Inc., 485 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1291(S.D. Ala.2007)(citingGerling Global Reinsurance Corp. of America v. Gallagher, 267 F.3d 1228, 1233(11th Cir.2001))."Where, as here, the parties file cross-motions for summaryjudgment, a court'must consider each motion separately on its own merits to determine whether either of the parties deserves judgment as a matter of law.'"Bio-Medical Applications of Georgia, Inc. v. City of Dalton, 685 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1327(N.D. Ga.2009)(quotingRossingnol v. Voorhaar, 316 F.3d 516, 523(4th Cir.2003))."Cross-motions for summary judgment will not, in themselves, warrant the court in granting summary judgment unless one of the parties is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on facts that are not genuinely disputed."United States v. Oakley, 744 F.2d 1553, 1555(11th Cir.1984)(internal quotations).

II.ZAMPERINI'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant/counter claimantBirmingham Southern Railroad Company[BSR] has brought a single claim against counter defendant Zamperini "for an Order requiring the submission of Board 594's purported November 21, 2011, interpretation and related 'papers and proceedings' to the Clerk of this Court in accordance with 45 U.S.C. §157 Third (f)."(Doc. 6at 40.)Board 594 had three members, including Zamperini, its Chair.

Section 157 Third (f) states:

The board of arbitration shall furnish a certified copy of its award to the respective parties to the controversy, and shall transmit the original, together with the papers and proceedings and a transcript of the evidence taken at the hearings, certified under the hands of at least a majority of the arbitrators, to the clerk of the district court of the United States for the district wherein the controversy arose or the arbitration is entered into, to be filed in said clerk's office as hereinafter provided.The said board shall also furnish a certified copy of its award, and the papers and proceedings, including testimony relating thereto, to the Mediation Board to be filed in its office; and in addition a certified copy of its award shall be filed in the office of theInterstate Commerce Commission: Provided, however, That such award shall not be construed to diminish or extinguish any of the powers or duties of the Interstate Commerce Commission, under subtitle IV of Title 49.

45 U.S.C. § 157 Third (f)(emphasis added).This section does provide BSR with a right to compel certification from Zamperini alone.She does not constitute Board 594 and she alone is certainly not a majority for purposes of certifying the award and the papers and proceedings.

Therefore, Zamperini's Motion for Summary Judgment, (doc. 48), will be granted and Count One of BSR's Counterclaim will be dismissed.

The court notes that its record contains authenticated copies of the Interpretation at issue, as well as copies of emails and other documents that Zamperini has testified she and the other members of Board 594 received before Board 594 rendered its Interpretation.Although BSR has argued that it cannot be assured that all relevant documents have been produced, the court finds that only BSR's speculation supports this position.The court is satisfied, based on consideration of the entire record, that all relevant papers and proceedings surrounding Board 594's Interpretation have been filed with the court.

III.UTU'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

A.STATEMENT OF FACTS

The facts set forth below have been drawn from the court's record evidence construed in the light most favorable to BSR, the non-moving party.

1.General Background

BSR was a "carrier" as defined in the Railway Labor Act("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 151 First, until it terminated operations on January 31, 2012.(Doc. 1 ¶ 5; doc. 6 ¶ 5, Answer; doc. 52-1 at 6.)Plaintiff/counterclaim defendant United Transportation Union [UTU] is a labor organization and the duly authorized "representative" within the meaning of the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 151 Sixth, of the four "crafts and classes" of employees employed by BSR.(Doc. 1 ¶ 4; doc. 6 ¶ 4, Answer; doc. 52-1 at 6.)

In the railroad industry, collective bargaining can occur either at the national level between multiple railroads and a union or at the local level between one railroad and a union.(Doc. 6 ¶ 34, Countercl.; doc. 20 ¶ 34; doc. 52-1 at 6.)Many of the nation's largest railroads choose to negotiate their labor agreements with UTU nationally through a single negotiating representative.(Doc. 6 ¶ 34, Countercl.; doc. 20 ¶ 34; doc. 52-1 at 6.)Other railroads, like BSR, customarily engage in local collective bargaining with UTU, entering into individualized labor agreements commonly referred to as "local agreements."(Doc. 6 ¶ 34, Countercl.; doc. 20 ¶ 34; doc. 52-1 at 6.)

2. 2004 Local Agreements and National Agreement

UTU and BSR entered into four local collective bargaining agreements [the Local Agreements] between July 30, 2004 and April 7, 2005 - one for each craft and class of BSR employee represented by UTU - governing rates of pay, rules, and working conditions.Relevant here, the Local Agreements provided for the payment of specified general wageincreases [GWI] and cost-of-living allowances [COLA] but stated that COLA payable under the Local Agreements "will be disposed of in the manner provided in the next national agreement after 2004."(Doc. 47-7 ¶ 3.)The "next national agreement," as referenced in the COLA provisions of the Local Agreements, became effective on July 1, 2008.(Doc. 6 ¶ 37, Countercl.; doc. 20 ¶ 37; doc. 52-1 at 7.)The 2008 National Agreement provided that "[a]ll cost-of-living allowance payments made under that 2002[National] Agreement to employees for periods on and after July 1, 2005[,] shall be recovered from any retroactive wage increase payments made under Article 1 of this Agreement."(Doc. 47-4at 11, 77, 98-99.)

BSR interpreted this provision of the National Agreement as entitling national carriers to recover certain previously paid COLA from its UTU-represented employees, and because the parties agreed in the 2004 Local Agreements that COLA paid thereunder "will be disposed of in the manner provided in the next national agreement," BSR maintained that it too was entitled to reclaim certain previously paid...