Labor and Employment - Patrick L. Coyle and Alexandra v. Garrison

• Publication year: 2012

Labor and Employment

by Patrick L. Coyle* and Alexandra V. Garrison**

Courts within the Eleventh Circuit handed down a number of important opinions affecting labor and employment during the January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011 survey period.¹ The following is a discussion of those opinions.

I. Labor Management Relations Act

In Jim Walter Resources, Inc. v. United Mine Workers of America,² the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court order that required an Alabama coal mining company to arbitrate its claim that the United Mine Workers and four local unions engaged in work stoppages in violation of a collective bargaining agreement, remanding the matter to the district court.³ In so doing, the court rejected the expansive approach applied by the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits (on which the district court had, in part, relied), which required arbitration in cases where a collective bargaining agreement reflected a general commitment to arbitration.⁴ Instead, the court in Jim Walter Resources held that parties to a collective bargaining

* Senior Associate in the firm of Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, Georgia. University of Notre Dame (B.A., magna cum laude, 1999); University of Virginia School of Law (J.D., 2004). Member, State Bars of Georgia and South Carolina.

** Associate in the firm of Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, Georgia. Dartmouth College (A.B., magna cum laude, 2007); University of Virginia School of Law (J.D., 2010). Member, State Bar of Georgia.

1. For an analysis of Eleventh Circuit labor and employment law during the prior survey period, see Patrick L. Coyle & Alexandra V. Garrison, Labor and Employment, Eleventh Circuit Survey, 62 Mercer L. Rev. 1199 (2011).

2. 663 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2011).

3. Id. at 1328.

4. Id. at 1327-28.

1310 MERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol.63

agreement were only required to arbitrate disputes contemplated by the arbitration clause of the agreement.⁵

Jim Walter Resources, Inc. (Jim Walter) owned and operated coal mining properties and other facilities in Alabama, and its employees were represented by the United Mine Workers and its four local unions (the Union).⁶ According to the collective bargaining agreement between Jim Walter and the Union, the United Mine Workers "may designate memorial periods not exceeding a total of ten (10) days during the term of this Agreement at any mine or operation provided it shall give reasonable notice to the Employer."⁷ The parties also entered into a Memorandum of Understanding which stated, in part, that, "[t]he memorial period will be designated for legitimate reasons."⁸

In October 2008, the Union observed two memorial periods away from work at Jim Walter mines.⁹ Jim Walter determined that these work stoppages were not "legitimate" memorial periods as provided in the Memorandum of Understanding.¹⁰ The Union disagreed, contending that the work stoppages were proper memorial periods that allowed its members to attend local hearings conducted by the Department ofLabor, Mine Safety and Health Administration. Jim Walter countered that the Union's proffered explanation for the work stoppages was pretextual, asserting that the actual motivation stemmed from a workplace dispute regarding work scheduling and other conflicts with Jim Walter's Industrial Relations Supervisor.¹¹ Consequently, Jim Walter filed suit under the Labor Management Relations Act¹² in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, requesting a declaratory judgment (1) "'that the dispute between the parties [regarding the memorial periods] is subject to the [contractual] arbitration procedure'; and (2) an award of damages 'for these illegal work stoppages.'"¹³ The Union moved for summary judgment, arguing

5. Id. at 1328.

6. Id. at 1323.

7. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

8. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

9. Id.

10. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

11. Id.

12. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (2006). Section 185 of the Labor Management Relations Act provides in part that "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce . . . may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties."

13. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 663 F.3d at 1323 n.4 (second alteration in original) (noting that "[i]t is an irony of the case that Jim Walter depends upon the arbitration provisions of the contract from which to infer a no strike obligation on the part of the Union (i.e., that the employees at Mine No. 7 should have grieved and sought arbitration of their disputes)

2012] LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 1311

that the collective bargaining agreement required Jim Walter to arbitrate its claims rather than pursue a lawsuit in federal court.¹⁴

The collective bargaining agreement between Jim Walter and the Union contained dispute resolution procedures under Article XXVII that provided for the resolution ofdisputes and claims in accordance with the "machinery provided in the 'Settlement of Disputes' Article of this Agreement . . . and by collective bargaining without recourse to the courts."¹⁵ The "Settlement of Disputes" section of the agreement (Article XXIII) contained an employee grievance procedure requiring the resolution of disputes through arbitration. Other provisions in the agreement discussed arbitration in the context of disputes stemming from employee complaints and relating to the employee-oriented grievance system.¹⁶

The Union argued that Jim Walter's claim for damages was subject to arbitration because Article XXVII of the collective bargaining agreement reflected the parties' intent "to resolve all disputes and claims . . . without recourse to the courts."¹⁷ Jim Walter, however, argued that Article XXIII, governing Settlement of Disputes, applied only to employee-related disputes and claims and that the agreement did not "contemplate or provide for any claim or grievance, or the arbitration of any claim or grievance, asserted by the employer."¹⁸

In reaching its decision that the collective bargaining agreement's arbitration provisions did not apply to Jim Walter's damages claim, the Eleventh Circuit relied on several Supreme Court decisions, precedent from the former Fifth Circuit, and the First, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.¹⁹ First, the court noted that the 1960 cases known as the Steelworkers Trilogy²⁰ established several basic principles governing the application of arbitration provisions contained in collective bargaining agreements, including the principles that "arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any

while contending that the Company has no reciprocal contractual obligation to arbitrate its claim for damages").

14. Id. at 1323-24; see also Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment at 19-20, Jim Walter Res., Inc. v. United Mine Workers of Am. Int'l Union, No. 7:08-CV-02033 (N.D. Ala. Oct. 5, 2009).

15. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 663 F.3d at 1324.

16. Id.

17. Id. at 1325 (internal quotation marks omitted).

18. Id.

19. Id. at 1325-28.

20. United Steelworkers of Am. v. Am. Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (1960); United

Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960); United Steelworkers of Am. v. Enter. Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593 (1960).

1312 MERCER LAW REVIEW [Vol.63

dispute which he has not agreed so to submit" and if the contract contains an arbitration clause, a presumption ofarbitrability exists, and "[d]oubts should be resolved in favor of coverage."²¹

Next, the court analyzed two United States Supreme Court cases, Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co.²² and Drake Bakeries, Inc. v. Local 50, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers International,²³ both of which involved employers that had filed damages lawsuits against the respective unions representing their employees for violating a "no strike clause" in the respective collective bargaining agreements.²⁴ Although both cases involved collective bargaining agreements that contained arbitration clauses, the Supreme Court found that only one of the agreements (the one in Drake Bakeries) allowed for arbitration of that particular employer/union dispute.²⁵ What was the difference? In Drake Bakeries, the grievance procedure in the bargaining agreement contemplated arbitrability of both union and employer grievances.²⁶ The contract in Atkinson, however, contained an employee grievance procedure that was tailored specifically to the adjudication of employee grievances.²⁷ Like the employee grievance procedure in Atkinson, the grievance procedure in Jim Walter was narrowly tailored to employee grievances.²⁸

The court also considered its own prior precedent and that of four other circuits in concluding that the instant dispute was not arbitra-ble.²⁹ In Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. International Union ofUnited Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America³⁰ and Friedrich v. Local Union No. 780,³¹ the former Fifth Circuit considered the same issue presented in the instant case (albeit with different agreements). In both cases, the former Fifth Circuit held that the employer was not required to arbitrate a claim for damages resulting from an alleged breach of a "no strike clause" where "the contractual grievance machin-

21. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 663 F.3d at 1325-26 (quoting Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. at 582-83).

22. 370 U.S. 238 (1962).

23. 370 U.S. 254 (1962).

24. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 663 F.3d at 1326.

25. Id.

26. Id. (citing Drake, 370 U.S. at 257).

27. Id. (citing Atkinson, 370 U.S. at 249).

28. See id. at 1328.

29. Id. at 1327.

30. 476 F.2d 603 (5th Cir. 1973).

31. 515 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1975).

2012] LABOR & EMPLOYMENT 1313

ery is wholly employee oriented."³² Further, the court in Jim Walter Resources acknowledged that courts of appeal in the First, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits reached the same result when interpreting collective bargaining...