International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 639 v. Airgas, Inc., 239 F. Supp. 3d 906

Airgas planned to move two operational functions (HPRLCR and SMO) from its Hyattsville, MD facility to Montgomeryville, PA and Linthicum Heights, MD, eliminating 13 union positions; move scheduled for March 6, 2017.
The Union (Teamsters Local 639) filed a grievance and sued under Section 301 seeking a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo pending arbitration under the parties’ CBA (effective 2014–2018).
Relevant CBA provisions: Article 9 (management’s reservation to relocate operations if notice/effects bargaining given), Article 10 (prohibition on subcontracting/transfer of unit work), and Article 18 (mandatory grievance/arbitration).
Airgas argued the relocation fell under Article 9 (not Article 10 subcontracting) and declined expedited arbitration; it had already started dismantling/moving equipment and hired five non-union workers in Montgomeryville.
The court held a hearing, found the dispute arbitrable, and concluded moving the operations would likely make arbitration an "empty victory" because equipment relocation, repurposing of Hyattsville space for regulated storage, and replacement hires would prevent restoring the status quo.
Court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining Airgas from relocating the HPRLCR and SMO functions or altering related staffing, and required a $5,000 bond from the Union.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may issue a status-quo injunction pending arbitration	Must enjoin relocation to preserve arbitration’s effectiveness	Boys Markets exception shouldn’t apply or relief unnecessary because arbitration can remedy any harms	Court: injunction allowed under Boys Markets to preserve arbitration when necessary
Whether relocation will cause irreparable harm to arbitration	Relocation, equipment moves, repurposing space, and new hires will make restoration impossible	Relocation can be undone and arbitration can restore status quo	Court: relocation would create a fait accompli and irreparably harm arbitral process; injunction warranted
Whether the dispute is arbitrable / likelihood of success on arbitrability	Dispute arises from CBA terms and thus is arbitrable	Airgas conceded arbitrability of dispute but disputes scope; did not contest arbitration requirement	Court: dispute is arbitrable; Union likely to succeed on that threshold issue
Whether expedited arbitration or bond should be ordered	Asked court to order expedited arbitration; sought nominal bond	Airgas opposed expedited timeline; sought large bond ($70,000/mo)	Court: declined to order expedited arbitration (would rewrite CBA); required $5,000 bond to secure injunction

Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970) (permits injunctions to preserve status quo where parties’ agreement requires arbitration).
Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO, 428 U.S. 397 (1976) (limits Boys Markets exception to disputes subject to binding arbitration).
Lever Bros. Co. v. Int’l Chemical Workers Union, 554 F.2d 115 (4th Cir. 1976) (upheld injunction halting relocation of operations pending arbitration where return to status quo would be infeasible).
Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Teamsters Local 71 v. Akers Motor Lines, Inc., 582 F.2d 1336 (4th Cir. 1978) (upheld injunction where sale/transfer and rehiring undermined ability to restore union jobs).
Columbia Local Am. Postal Workers Union v. Bolger, 621 F.2d 615 (4th Cir. 1980) (reversed injunction where reorganization within same facility could be remedied by arbitration).
Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. Co., 363 U.S. 528 (1960) (discusses irreparable harm where employee displacement renders arbitration an empty victory).
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (establishes four-factor preliminary injunction test).