Teamsters Local Union 480 v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

a statutory exception applies, no district zoning in Here, appeal Hueul’s in its discretion exer- issues as Hucul’s court cannot abuse factual the same volves claims, i.e., cising jurisdiction supplemental its over denial federal related part construct state-law claim that forms permission for controversy. Hucul property. on its digital billboard same case court not district does event, any the district court did not jurisdic had, right to exercise priori, may it have had abuse whatever discretion zoning appeal over the state-law tion zoning appeal in by deciding state-law appeal grounds that the state argue Hucul does not case. the same part formed federal claims appeal complex a novel or zoning raised controversy. case or predominated over issue of state law question is whether the district did Hucul’s numerous federal claims. Nor its abused discretion court nonetheless all the the district court dismiss claims jurisdiction. Un- exercising supplemental jurisdiction; in- original over which had 1367(c), district 28 U.S.C. der stead, it resolved Hucul’s First Amend- ju- supplemental decline” to exercise “may claims on the equal-protection ment and “if— risdiction Finally, argue, not nor Hucul does merits. (1) complex a novel or claim raises find, compelling do that other circum- we law, issue of State declining ju- to exercise stances exist (2) substantially predominates the claim in this risdiction case. claim or claims over which

over the original jurisdiction, court has IV (3) has the district court dismissed is judgment of the district court juris- original which it has claims over AFFIRMED. diction, or (4) circumstances, there exceptional declin- compelling reasons for

are other jurisdiction.” ing circum- exceptional those None of case, in this and Hucul present stances is one of argue otherwise. When does present, we review those circumstances LOCAL UNION TEAMSTERS not to exercise the district court’s decision 480, Plaintiff-Appellant, jurisdiction for of dis- supplemental abuse v. absence of such cretion. But SERVICE, PARCEL UNITED circumstance, that a appear it does INC., Defendant-Appellee. alone re- court would be authorized—let jurisdiction. exercise quired—to decline to 12-6253. No. statute, authorizing the district Appeals, States Court of supplemental to exercise decline Sixth Circuit. circumstances jurisdiction under certain decline”) (“district may (emphasis courts Argued: Oct. added), appear implication would April Filed: Decided and jurisdiction under require the exercise of circumstances—expressio unius all other Therefore, where

est exclusio alterius. GILMAN, CLAY, BOGGS,

Before: Judges. Circuit J., opinion BOGGS, delivered GILMAN, J., joined. court, in which 291-95), CLAY, delivered (pp. J. dissenting opinion. separate

OPINION

BOGGS, Judge. Circuit (“Union”) Teamsters Local in federal judgment declaratory sought a settlement enforce district Service, Parcel United agreement UPS had and (“UPS”). The Union Inc. in June agreement formed them. Ac- between a labor resolve comply Union, did not UPS cording to maintained UPS agreement. with the to abide failure about UPS’s complaint any arbi- fell broad within by the collective-bar- clause tration (“CBA”) was thus and gaining The district subject to arbitration. com- Union’s and dismissed jurisdic- subject-matter lack for plaint the dis- we conclude Although tion. jurisdiction, subject-matter trict court had below, affirm we given reasons for the Union’s of the dismissal court’s language based complaint,

I package-deliv- an international

UPS transportation, provides company ery Godwin, Cook, Mor- Lesley ARGUED: The Un- services. financial logistics, P.C., Bloomfield, Memphis, ris, & Laurenzi representa- bargaining the certified ion is D. Waverly Tennessee, Appellant. for employees. UPS for certain tive Lansden, Waller, Dortch & Crenshaw, Jr., UPS facts. these do Tennessee, Ap- for Nashville, LLP, Davis, as known workers a class employs Cook, Samuel Lesley BRIEF: ON pellee. trailers “shifters,” semi-tractor who drive Morris, & Godwin, Laurenzi Morris, loading- facility part a UPS Tennessee, for Bloomfield, P.C., Memphis, 7.Br. Appellee’s operation. dock Jr., Crenshaw, Waverly D. Appellant. to a are LLP, Davis, The Union & Lansden, Dortch Waller, (1) the two documents: consisting of Tennessee, Appellee. Nashville, n National Master United Parcel Service Where the National Grievance Commit-

Agreement (“Master Agreement”), effec- tee fails to reach a majority decision as from tive December 2007 through July case pursuant submitted to this 31, 2013; (2) the Teamsters Southern Article decisions) (excepting arbitrator Region United Parcel Supple- Service party either shall have the right to refer mental to the National Master the case to binding arbitration. Parcel Service (“Sup- plemental Agreement”), effective from the Any that does not raise an date of ratification July of interpretation issue of a Master The CBA provides elaborate grievance Agreement Article or Section shall be procedures that the Union and UPS must resolved provisions re- invoke to disputes resolve between them. lating local, state and area Under 7 of article the Master Agreement, procedures ance set in forth the applica- representatives of the “Authorized Union ble Supplements, Riders and Addenda. may grievances file alleging violations of this Agreement, under local The shall arbitrator have the authority cedures, or provided herein.” Article to apply provisions of this Agree- addressing “National Grievance Proce- ment and to render a decision on any dure,” provides, in pertinent part: grievance coming before ... him/her grievances All questions of inter- and/or Any that does not raise an pretation arising the provisions issue of interpretation of a Master this National Agreement Master shall be Agreement Article or Section shall be [in resolved accordance with the follow- resolved to provisions re- ing provisions]. lating local, to the state and area procedures set forth in the applica- Supplements, ble Riders and Addenda. grievances

All questions arising and/or under the provisions of this National The Supplemental Agreement—-which Master shall be submitted to key contains language for this case—fur- procedure for determina- ther details the grievance procedures the tion. parties must follow for dispute resolution. “Grievance,”

Article titled provides, in pertinent part: The Union and Employer may under [Section SECTION reverse, 3] review and if neces- sary, area, decisions any regional or local grievance committee which inter- A grievance hereby jointly defined to

prets Master language erroneously. any be controversy, complaint, misun-

derstanding or dispute arising as to in- terpretation, application or observance decision of the National Grievance any of the provisions of this Agree- Committee shall be final binding. ment. The National Grievance Committee shall

determine whether a decision submitted it raises an issue of interpretation of In the event any grievance, complaint, Master language. or dispute it shall be handled in the

following manner: re- economic legal right [use] to the report shall employee 1. course. with- writing steward shop employee’s 2010, the The steward to June (5) days. prior working time At some five concern- grievances with matter numerous adjust filed Union attempt shall op- work (48) assigning methods forty-eight ing UPS’s within supervisor re- to shifters. portunities hours. grievances of these some solved shop steward agree, Failing to they me- negotiation, discussion the matter report promptly shall in a settle- understanding their morialized writing init Union, shall submit which 16, 2010 June dated agreement, with adjust the same attempt to Id. UPS (“Settlement Agreement”). (15) days. fifteen within Employer assigning methods for alter its agreed a decision to reach fail If the In ex- to shifters. opportunities work matter upon cer- agree withdraw the Union change, area, be it shall Union Local prejudice apparently grievances tain — (15) days 1 of step were fifteen grievances within referenced submitted alleges Grievance The Union Parcel process. Area Region Southern terms by the not abided has Committee. is, the That Agreement. the Settlement assigned has not that UPS alleges COMMIT- 2 GRIEVANCE SECTION man- to shifters opportunities work TEE —S.R.A.P.G.C. upon. ner filed the Union February On panel declaration, the of majority court, seeking the of a The decision in district suit Act, on 28 binding Judgment be Declaratory shall the case the hearing step ordering UPS 2201, 2202, each §§ reached Decisions U.S.C. parties. Agreement. including the Settlement by the abide of dis- motion UPS’s granted final shall be district level Supervisor-Steward subject- of lack for complaint miss the binding. and appealed. Union jurisdiction. matter the Union’s dismissal now affirm We 3 SECTION complaint. be cannot dispute any grievance If II majority deci- aby satisfactorily settled S.R.A.P.G.C- a district novo panel de sion review We submitted for lack be complaint shall then court’s dismissal v. Medi- McCormick the Federal jurisdiction. subject-matter arbitrator (6th Cir. by Univ., either F.3d Service Conciliation Miami ation and a district novo (5) de 2012). review days. also five We within parties or both arbitrability of about conclusion court’s Inc. 398 v. Pfizer, Simon dispute. be shall arbitrator decision Cir.2005). 765, 772 on the binding final In event involved. employees III by the to abide fails losing party A party decision, either or that arbitrator’s dispute matter, ju- an initial As to the arbitrator’s to submit refuses exer- properly whether have the shall party risdiction, other jurisdiction subject-matter cised over the and the Agreement require complaint, Union’s suit. In its the Union Union to submit an breach jurisdiction under section 301 asserts of Settlement to the CBA’s inter- Management grievance procedures. the Labor Relations Act nal The parties do (LMRA), § appel- they U.S.C. its are bound brief, them; late instead they simply contends that contracts between jurisdic- the district court’s sole pute meaning basis of the contracts’ terms. statute, Therefore, federal-question tion was the provides jurisdic- the LMRA UPS, though U.S.C. master its tion. motion, styles its motion aas motion to Subject-matter jurisdiction is not to both dismiss Fed.R.Civ.P. question. a merits “It refers to tribu 12(b)(1) 12(b)(6) and not as a motion power nal’s to a hear a case.” Morrison v. compel arbitration. But in accom- its Ltd., Nat’l Austl. Bank 561 U.S. memorandum, panying only fleeting- UPS 2869, 2877, (2010) S.Ct. 177 L.Ed.2d 535 ly jurisdiction references ar- instead (internal omitted). quotation marks Sub gues that proper dismissal is because the ject-matter jurisdiction “presents an issue must be resolved in accor- quite separate from question whether grievance proce- dance with the CBA’s allegations the plaintiff entitle makes dures. pursue failure to arbi- lawsuit, him to relief.” Id. In this tration means that the Union has failed to argues that prohibited the Union is from state a claim under and the Set- filing suit this court because the Union tlement Agreement, UPS’s motion is more has exhausted the internal properly construed as a motion to dismiss 12(b)(6) process under the This is a 12(b)(6). under Rule Accordingly, claim. we construe court, The district part, its dismissed 12(b)(6). UPS’s motion as one under See complaint ground Union’s (considering arguments erroneously id. la subject-matter jurisdic-

the court lacked 12(b)(1) beled as a Rule issue under Rule it, too, tion. But only devotes a few sen- 12(b)(6)). Here, the ju district court had discussing jurisdiction. tences to adjudi § risdiction under 29 185 U.S.C. to question cate the whether the Union’s fac

Although parties the have not thorough- allegations tual entitle it to ly relief. briefed whether the district court exer- jurisdiction § cised under 29 U.S.C. B we gives conclude that did. The LMRA subject-matter jurisdiction federal courts The dispute central between the over “[s]uits for parties violation of contracts be- is whether disagreement over tween an employer a organiza- alleged and labor UPS’s noneompliance with the Set 185(a). tion representing employees.” Agreement tlement is to the CBA’s Here, parties’ dispute centers grievance procedures1 on the or whether the Un interpretation of may contracts between an em- ion seek immediate relief in federal ployer a organization. and labor Specifi- court. “The first task of a court asked to cally, parties dispute whether arbitrability] the CBA dispute [resolve of a is to arbitration, however, 1. The procedures CBA contains elaborate proper mal is under the convenience, grievances. resolving For we only parties CBA when the have exhausted "arbitrability” use "arbitration” as short- 1-3, procedures steps the other under Arti- "dispute hand for resolution in accordance Supplemental Agreement. 51 cle grievance procedures.” with the CBA’s For- for it to resolution with UPS. And to ion seek parties agreed whether determine fails, parties must if that submit Motors dispute.” Mitsubishi arbitrate Inc., regional grievance commit- complaint Chrysler-Plymouth, v. Corp. Soler step A “at each tee. “decision” reached 105 S.Ct. 473 U.S. (1985). grievance procedure” is “final and is a “[Arbitration L.Ed.2d contraet[,] binding.” regional grievance And if the cannot party be matter of “satisfactorily” cannot settle committee to submit to required issue, parties must submit the issue agreed so to sub- which he has not pute Techs., also The arbitrator’s decision Inc. v. Commc’ns arbitration. AT & T mit.” 643, 648, parties. on the Am., binding” becomes “final and U.S. Workers of (1986) (internal 1415, L.Ed.2d 648 S.Ct. only It is at the conclusion of this omitted). parties The quotation marks may party that a sue cess labor and arbitration much of federal make grievance. Following arbitra- resolve a principle “is at but the common policy, tion, may legal invoke prevailing party the enforce- guaranteeing policy bottom a the arbitral decision recourse enforce private arrange- contractual losing A against party. party Hence, question is the initial ments.” properly to arbitration refuses to submit the Union intended whether UPS and may brought be to court. also present dispute. arbitrate readily admits that Union dispute-resolution language substantial provides based on argues, UPS system bypass it seeks to system—yet intended a that the concedes that in this case. The Union party’s compliance one disagreement over have to the CBA to be re “[t]he Settlement pro complex system and structured internal solved resolution, only is one of which arbitration responds cedures. Union fur- Br. 9. part.” Appellant’s final bind Agreement is as acknowledges language that “[t]he is thus ther arbitration award and ing clear, strongly express, CBA is judicial enforcement. The best entitled to grievances supports is their mu evidence of the intent process.” agree. Id. We language, stages contained tually agreed-upon their contracts. question the further There remains over UPS’s emphasizes that the CBA whether rightly one language favor of breach of the Settlement expansive contains or application non-judicial “arising interpretation, as to grievances through resolving ap- Although it of the CBA. “jointly observance” define[s]” The CBA means. Agreement— the Settlement “any controversy, complaint, pears as obligations concerning rights and dispute arising misunderstanding in- parties regarding shifters—does interpretation, application or observance observance, inter- Agreement.” application, provisions of this volve any of the CBA, we need not resolve Further, pretation “any grievance, complaint, parties agree question because both using agreed this pute be handled” [ ] shall deciding argues that First, does. UPS aggrieved grievance procedures. Agree- it breached the Settlement “shop whether complain must to their employees analyzing par- require how the ment steward,” must to resolve the would attempt who “ex- fails, terms like and understand If that ties define supervisor. matter with “out tra/coverage opportunities” work report must issue Un- steward of classification work.” Appellee’s See Br. C This, argues, requires interpret The parties are correct that we act ing Union, the CBA.2 The for its part, against the backdrop of a policy federal asserts that “UPS’s breach of the Settle supporting a presumption of arbitrability constitutes a violation of in the labor-law context. The presumption the arbitration provisions of the CBA.” in favor of arbitration applies with particu Both parties agree that about lar force in labor disputes between an em entails inter ployer and a union. The text of the Labor preting and applying the CBA.3Therefore, Management Relations provides Act the dispute is a “grievance” under the “[fjinal adjustment by a method CBA and “shall be handled” using upon by is declared to be the CBA’s procedures. desirable method for settlement griev disputes arising over Our dissenting colleague disputes the or interpretation anof existing collective- foregoing reasoning. He contends that bargaining agreement.” 29 U.S.C. the “Union’s passing statement that UPS’s 173(d). breach of the Settlement Agreement con- stitutes violation of the provi- Congressional policy favors the sions of the CBA is not a concession that “private settlement of disputes” under col the dispute interpretation, concerns appli- lective-bargaining agreements. Int’l Un cation, or observance of [the CBA].” Dis- ion, Auto., Aerospace Agr.& Im (alteration senting Op. at 293 in original) plement (UAW), Workers Am. AFL- (emphasis (internal in original) quotation CIO v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. omitted). marks But argument is 696, 702, 1107, 86 S.Ct. 16 L.Ed.2d 192 without consequence because this court’s (1966). This “in policy favor of settlement opinion in Jones v. General Corp., Motors of disputes by through the Cir.1991), forecloses machinery of arbitration” is long-recog any argument to the contrary. Jones held nized. United Steelworkers Am. v. the construction of a settlement Warrior Co., & Nav. U.S. Gulf agreement in fact “require[s] an interpre- 582, 80 S.Ct. (1960). L.Ed.2d 1409 tation of the terms [the] CBA” because “[A]n order arbitrate particular it concerns “employment relationships grievance should not be denied unless it which are to a collective bargaining may be said positive assurance that agreement.” (internal Id. quotation marks the arbitration clause is not susceptible of omitted). We thus arrive at the same an interpretation that covers the asserted regardless conclusion of whether or not dispute.” Techs., AT & T U.S. at the Union has conceded point. 106 S.Ct. Furthermore, 2. The Settlement Agreement does not ex- application of the CBA. The district court pressly reference the CBA. But this is not dis- sensibly concluded that the "Union’s claim positive in determining whether the current that UPS breached the June 2010 Settlement dispute over the arbitrability alleged of the Agreement plainly constitutes” dispute a Settlement breach concerns "interpretation, "arising as interpretation, to application, or application, or observance" CBA. observance of the CBA." Teamsters Local Un- ion Service, 480 v. Inc., United The district correctly Parcel reasoned No. that a dispute 3:12-cv-00178, concerning 4049980, arbitrability 2012 WL aof *6at & n. (M.D.Tenn. a about 13, breach of 11 Sept. 2012). agreement can amount to an interpretation or

289 violation of the arbitra of ment “constitutes a in favor be resolved should “[d]oubts provisions of the CBA.” tion coverage.” Id. con in favor of presumption The D alternative

tractually agreed-upon range questions ato extends resolution argues that Union a contract. Even may about arise judicially is enforceable be- Agreement validity of the contract” on the “attacks enjoys binding” status cause it “final in the by the arbitrator must “be resolved Union, According under the 4 Techs., L.L.C. first instance.” Nitro-Lift CBA, clear” that language is “[i]n - Howard, U.S.-, 500, 133 S.Ct. v. any step at of the “a settlement (2012); 503, see 328 L.Ed.2d Br. 11. binding.” Appellant’s final and [is] Ce Am. v. Saint Gobain Steelworkers of points no clause specific But the Union 417, Plastics, Inc., ramics & What that makes this “clear.” (“If Cir.2007) (en banc)' doubt exists Supplemental 51 of the Article [concerning proce whether a over “[djecisions state, however, is that does arbitrating case] requirements dural step grievance pro- of the reached each line, of this or the other falls on one side finding binding.” ... cedure shall be arbitrability in favor presumption added). (emphasis Settle- for the arbitra one question makes Agreement was not decision tor.”). any step of the reached of an arbitra presence mere cedure, binding it is not final and not remove in a contract does tion clause this clause of the CBA. questions about the contract from that the Set- unable to conclude We are example, questions ken. For

judicial is outcome of Agreement here tlement formation”—whether about “contract does grievance process. The Union the contract parties ever otherwise, pre- cannot allege and we “generally for courts place—are first complaint. facts not in Union’s sume v. Int'l Bhd. Granite Rock Co. decide.” is a say Nor can we Teamsters, 287, 2847, 130 S.Ct. 561 U.S. griev- step at a of the reached “[d]ecision” (2010). 2856-57, L.Ed.2d 567 itself, at Arti- The CBA procedure. ance satisfy “[t]o has clear that been Court Agreement, Supplemental cle 51 of the exists, itself that [an] and “decision” the terms “settlement” uses ques that calls into must resolve issue (Section Article differently. 1 of of the applicability tion the formation describing step third party clause that a specific arbitration says: “If the fail to reach process, Id. at a court enforce.” seeks to have upon settle- agree a decision case, however, only do ment_”). proper parties not contest either that settlements en- enough It true validity formation or of a phases into at different tered affirmatively maintains that UPS’s enforceable, may judicially be Agree process of the Settlement breach (2010) (explaining that "[t]he Supreme generally L.Ed.2d Court uses "validi- 4. The ‘validity’ only questions agreement's is different ty” as a term art refer issue of the defenses. applicability any agreement of contractual be- the issue whether from Jackson, See, Rent-A-Center, West, ”) Inc. v. e.g., parties 'was ever concluded.’ tween the 2778 n. 130 S.Ct. 561 U.S. if the CBA or the so So too in Tucker, Barnes & also cited by provides. An agreement “arrived at by the There, Union. “by the express terms virtue of a grievance process established the [CBA], settlements reached at any by a collective bargaining agreement” may step [of procedure] are final be a “ereature[] wholly begotten by binding on parties.” both Jones, CBA.” 939 F.2d at But, 382-83. Mine Am., as Workers Dist. No. 2 v. explained, the record does not Barnes Co., show & Tucker F.2d (3d this Settlement Agreement Cir.1977). Here, was entered the CBA does not into through the formal contain a process. similar clause. The district court, in concluding that it There is oddity no in finding that that must defer to parties’ dispute- chosen the Settlement Agreement, which is not a method, resolution relies heavily Bakers decision reached any at step of Union Factory No. 326 v. ITT Cont’l Bak- process, is nonetheless covered by the ing Co., Inc., 749 F.2d 350 Cir.1984). CBA’s arbitration clause. To conclude Although that case does offer a lengthy otherwise is to blur the questions. Wheth- discussion of settlement agreements and er the Settlement Agreement falls within arbitration, it has limited application here the arbitration clause simply does not turn and is not controlling. In Union, Bakers on whether it was a decision reached union filed a formal grievance after an process. Rather, employee was suspended for drinking on whether the Agreement falls within the job. Id. at 351. union, the em- arbitration clause turns chiefly on whether ployer, and the employee then entered into present dispute “arise[s] as to inter- a settlement agreement “in accordance

pretation, application or observance” with the grievance procedures established CBA provisions. by the collective bargaining agreement,” The Union id., cites various cases in the employer support rescinded the sus- of its contention pension. that a final and binding Subsequently, the employer con- settlement may be tended judicially that the employee enforceable. failed to abide But these cases, are unlike one, terms of the where settlement and fired parties him. Id. contractually 351-52. that set- The union invoked tlements the grievance would be final and binding. In contest the em- ployee’s Consolidation Coal, discharge. the court Id. stated that at 352. An arbi- “it is indisputable trator point determined that the firing, although means legitimate chosen by for settlement settlement agree- ment, their was differences too under a severe collective and ordered bar- rein- gaining agreement statement. Id. can be When the judicially employer en- re- forced in fused to federal court reinstate as long employee, the set- union tlement sued for enforcement of the binding under arbitral final contract.” award. Id. United Mine Workers Am. Dist. No. 5 v. Co., Consolidation Coal case, both the arbi- —and (3d Cir.1981) (emphasis add- recognized that the employee had trator — ed). indeed, And Consolidation Coal in- been fired in accordance with the settle- volved a CBA under which “[settlements ment agreement; the issue was whether reached at any step of proce- the arbitrator exceeded his authority when dure shall be final and binding.” Id. at he disregarded and overrode the express 808 n. 3. terms of agree- dis- labor resolving of in favor policy the may courts Federal at 353. id. See ment. agreed- own the Here, putes how- questions. such hear properly to parties the Requiring may upon processes. the Union is whether issue ever, the may procedures grievance procedures CBA’s the use grievance CBA’s the bypass sometimes— is that delay, but create altogether. with case always not certainly though —the that, under contemplated Union Bakers con- the of mindful areWe en- arbitration. may circumstances, party “a certain breaking then making and that cern in federal agreement force ploy be a could agreement the contro- submitting first without aof enforcement judicial But at 355. Id. ultimate prevent arbitrator.” to an versy we have But dispute. agreement “the a labor only when resolution case the is Id. a situation parties.” is the that this binding believe and reason final no is the duping continually is UPS which issue at Also, the settlement Enforc- game. an unwinnable into one Union from differs Union Bakers unions both benefit stands bro- CBA ing it was way: material in a here issue may be assured as both grievance employers, formal and pursuant kered are promises bargaining contracted freely a collective of that their procedures matters, contrast, the Settlement all arbitration “As with binding. agreement. to en- seeks Union contract.” one is of that matter Agreement of an blessing “Just neither Steelworkers, bears here force of imprimatur nor an enter need arbitrator parties two Rather, Un- may process. they grievance place,” first CBA’s in the contract merely reached was alleges that handled be ion must questions which choose be- negotiation and discussion “[Hollowing Id. by arbitration. The difference parties].” [the tween into a CBA entered Union here, al- Settlement that com- controversy, “any provides appli- interpretation involving though dispute” misunderstanding plaint, by the CBA, is not sanctioned cation or ob- “interpretation, concerns CBA. procedures handled” be “shall servance” to enforce attempts the Union Finally, the CBA’s with accordance under Section Settlement its that UPS’s agree cedures. Relations Management Labor Agree- breach gives statute That § 185. Act, U.S.C. a violation constitutes general over jurisdiction courts use must the Union Accordingly, contracts violation “[s]uits area seek- before procedures CBA’s organiza- a labor employer an between has relief. judicial ing industry an employees representing tion CBA, we under the claima state above, failed explained As affecting commerce.” dis- judgment court’s the district labor AFFIRM adjudicate may courts though, complaint. missing the employ- a Union between bargaining a collective when er resolve binds expressly dissenting. Judge, CLAY, Circuit means. through alternate majority agree I jurisdiction matter IV had trict to section case over exist- comfortably within fits This case Act, 29 Relations Management Labor recognizing precedents Court Supreme ing 185(a) (“LMRA § U.S.C. 301”), and that the Union has not exhausted its remedies pursuant dismissal 12(b)(1) Rule under the CBA, including an arbitration Federal of Rules Civil Procedure was im- requirement. The majority, like the dis- proper. However, I disagree with the ma- trict court below, holds that the Union jority’s conclusion that Teamsters Local must “exhaust the internal grievance pro- (“the Union 480 Union”) must utilize the cess under CBA,” but does not offer grievance procedure set forth in par- any guidance as to what this entails. Pre- ties’ collective bargaining agreement sumably, the majority would require the (“CBA”) before seeking judicial relief with Union to begin at step one grievance respect to their claim that United Parcel process, which provides, in pertinent part, (“UPS”) Service breached the parties’ set- “[t]he employee shall report [any griev- tlement agreement. settlement ance, complaint, or dispute] to the employ- agreement that the Union seeks to enforce ee’s shop steward in writing (5) within five against UPS memorialized a final, com- working days” and “[t]he steward shall plete settlement of several individual attempt to adjust the matter with the su- grievances. particular This settlement pervisor within forty-eight (48) hours.” In agreement is capable of being interpreted addition to being impractical, this outcome and enforced without reference to the is legally incorrect. CBA or other Thus, documents. the Un- It is “[wjhere true that [a] ion’s contract complaint con- that UPS breached the set- tains an clause, there tlement is a pre- does not concern “in- sumption of arbitrability in terpretation, the sense that application, or observance” of [a]n order to arbitrate the particular CBA, griev- and therefore does not fall with- ance should not be denied unless it procedure may be provision con- said positive tained in the assurance that CBA. the arbi- did tration clause is not not agree susceptible inter- dispute to the pretation covers the in the asserted CBA, I re- pute.” AT T Techs., & spectfully dissent. Inc. v. Commc’ns Am., Workers 475 643, 650, U.S. 106 Both parties agree that this Court has S.Ct. (1986) (internal L.Ed.2d 648 authority, generally, to enforce a settle- quotation marks and citation omitted); see ment agreement between parties to a also United Steelworks America v. Coo- CBA. See Jones v. Gen. Motors Corp. and per Tire & Co., Rubber 277- Workers, Auto Local (6th Cir.2007). Nonetheless, (6th F.2d 380 “arbitra- Cir.1991); Davis v. Bell tion is a matter of contract and a party Atlantic-West Virginia, Inc., 110 F.3d 245 cannot be required to submit Cir.1997). to arbitration The issue in this case is any dispute which he has whether, not agreed prior so seeking relief federal submit.” AT & Techs., court, T U.S. at must submit complaint its 106 S.Ct. 1415. to the grievance process set forth in the CBA. The Union contends that it may seek CBA provides, in relevant part: immediate relief in federal court for “[any] grievance UPS’ not subject [is breach, and seeks a declaratory judgment National Grievance Procedure] shall be re- to enforce against UPS. solved to the provisions relating response, argues Union’s local, state and area complaint that UPS breached the settle- cedures set forth in the applicable Supple- ment agreement falls within ment[ ]....” A grievance is defined as procedure provision in the CBA, and that “any controversy, complaint, misunder- language only the concerns interpre- toas arising standing not agreement, observance tation, application interpretation It involves (emphasis CBA. Agreement.” provisions of agreement, added). simply, Quite matter, strongly dis- I a threshold As suscepti- is “not provision statement majority’s with the agree that covers interpretation of an ble question resolve need “we Steelworkers, dispute.” asserted UPS’ over dispute the [whether at 278. is agreement settlement the of breach applica- interpretation, to ‘arising as one conclusion, the opposite the reaching In because CBA] the of or tion observance’ reasoning the affirms summarily majority Majori- that does.” parties agree both con- dispute “a that district the of statement passing The Union’s at 287. ty disagreement a arbitrability of the cerning of the breach “UPS’s that agreement of settlement a breach a about the of a violation constitutes applica- or interpretation to an amount can is not CBA” of the provisions But n. 3. at Majority the of CBA.” tion concerns dispute that a concession circular, and constitutes is reasoning this or observance application “interpretation, dispute fundamental of the misstatement this statement Construing CBA].” [the is- disputed two are There this case. especially improper, is a concession as The fundamental Court. this before sues was “the Settlement where set- breached UPS is whether dispute formal through into entered [not] dispute is This agreement. tlement CBA].” in the forth process [set that Complaint in the forth set was Indeed, both 290. at Majority The sec- court. filed district appeal arguments their concede the fundamental is whether dispute ond which was agreement, proce- subject is dispute be- into entered negotiated freely is This CBA. outlined dure at arrived them, not was tween re- by UPS raised defense affirmative CBA of the mechanism The Complaint. Union’s to the sponse cess. two these analysis conflates court’s district breach- UPS whether as to dispute The dispute second issues. While disputed not con- does agreement the settlement ed funda- arbitrability [the “concern[s] the ap- interpretation, “as to dispute stitute in- to an amount can and] dispute mental This CBA. or observance” plication, CBA,” application or terpretation by its agreement particular concerns dispute the fundamental agreement final, complete awas terms the settlement interpretation proper superseded concluded relate not does agreement, It is under dealings prior is not dispute fundamental at all. not refer does freestanding document interpretation “as to dispute And, therein. any provision the CBA defense affirmative CBA, and UPS’ of’ the not be- it was majority, according claim the Union’s bring cannot 289- Majority See the CBA. by gotten procedure CBA’s purview UPS whether reasoning, court’s provision. can be the settlement breached disingenuous otherwise, is asserts which the set- corners the four from resolved misleading. reference without tlement UPS’ alternative theory is similarly reference to the language of the settlement flawed. argues UPS that the fundamental agreement alone. words, other subject to the grievance proce- dispute as to the meaning and application prescribed dure in the CBA “any because settlement agreement did “arise decision the Court here [as to whether as to interpretation, application, or observ- UPS breached the settlement agreement] ance of’ any of provisions would have to analyze and determine how and the dispute is not parties define, by contract prac- and/or provision in the CBA. tice, ‘extra/coverage work opportunities,’ ‘out of work,’ classification and ‘out of clas- Though the majority opinion suggests ” sification workers.’ Appellee Br. otherwise, our decision in Jones v. General Therefore, argues, “any disagree- Motors Corporation does preclude ment over whether the June 2010 Settle- holding, and has little relevance to the ment Agreement was violated invariably present case. 939 F.2d 380. Whereas the requires the interpretation application and issue in present the case is whether the of the Appellee CBA.” Br. at 16. But not parties agreed to submit a dispute con- every dispute that marginally involves the cerning the agreement settlement to the interpretation application or of the CBA is grievance procedure, in issue Jones a substantive dispute as to interpreta- was whether an employee’s state law claim tion or application of the Indeed, against his employer for breach of a settle- UPS has not that ment agreement was preempted by LMRA agree on the meaning of “extra/eoverage § 301. Jones did not involve a work opportunities,” “out of classification provision all, at and is entirely irrelevant work,” or “out of classification workers.” case, the instant in which preemption is The fact that the court might have to look anot disputed issue.1 Jones stands for the along with evidence, other well-settled proposition that an employee’s simply as background or context for un- claim against his employer for derstanding breach of a certain language in the settle- agreement settlement ment agreement should be brought does not in convert a dis- pute federal court over the 301; § under agreement settlement LMRA it says into a dispute over nothing the interpretation about whether applica- when dispute tion of the CBA. This is over a agreement the more settlement true might “arise where, case, as in this the dispute can be interpretation, application, or observ- ’ entirely, resolved or almost entirely, by ance of’ a CBA.2 Jones holding that a above, 1. As stated majority is correct that Lueck, Corp. Chalmers 202, 213, v. 471 U.S. this case properly was brought 1904, under LMRA 105 S.Ct (1985), 85 L.Ed.2d 206 § and a state law breach of contract when of state law dispute to a claim would be preempted many for "requires interpretation of a collective- reasons articulated in Jones. bargaining agreement.” Lingle Norge v. Di- Inc., Magic vision Chef, 486 U.S. of 2. The majority opinion takes language certain 108 S.Ct. 100 L.Ed.2d 410 from Jones out of context. The opinion Jones (1988).... We are faced with a state law states, part: in relevant claim for of a agreement. breach settlement We must ... decide if Jones's breach agreement This was arrived at by virtue of a against contract suit reality GM in ais grievance process by established a collec- claim LMRA, 301 of the and is tive agreement, bargaining signed only by therefore pre-empted.... Pre-emption oc- engaged in bargain- collective curs when a decision on the state claim "is ing, promised job reinstatement to a inextricably intertwined with consideration whose terms and conditions are by created contract,” terms of the labor Allis- to a collective bargaining agree- to submit required was ly, the Union a settlement for breach claim law state complaint its ‘interpretation an “require[s] agreement law. a court in seeking recourse pre- prior § 301 triggering a CBA the terms’ is en- holding contradict does emption” court, reverse would I falls in federal case instant forceable in dispute and remand the district the order scope of the outside consistent assum- proceedings Even at the case provision. case present opinion. ing interpretation “require

would still majority CBA,” the of [the] terms as to arose show cannot Jones of the CBA. interpretation issue central inapplicable entirely case. instant dealt Jones fact that In addition question, legal wholly different with a DEWALD, Westfield Jerome factually dis- case are Jones case Petitioner-Appellee, Court way. The a critical tinguishable v. observed Jones arrived “was issue WRIGGELSWORTH, Gene established process a grievance virtue Respondent-Appellant. agreement.” bargaining a collective 12-2076. No. case, the present In the F.2d “an outcome was not settlement Appeals, Court States a “decision nor process” of the Circuit. Sixth pro- step of reached Majori- 23, 2014. CBA].” by the Jan. Argued: [established cedure at 289. ty 7, 2014. April Filed: Decided this Court— before Denied Banc Rehearing En breached whether 9, 2014.* May “as to agreement —is or observance application, interpretation, CBA],” dispute is [the in the provision subvert would otherwise To hold differ- their resolve agree-

ences in lieu entered into which According- process. pre-emption? triggering CBAa will not claim of this resolution ment. question answered precise a interpretation direct involve affirmative, agree. require and we will but term cre- Corp., 939 relationships have been Motors v. Gen. address Jones bargaining 1991). the collective Cir. ated 382-83 upon dispute founded mediate and to cess * rehearing the rea- grant would Judge Cole process by CBA. Does rights created in his dissent. stated sons the terms” "interpretation require an

Case Details

Case Name: Teamsters Local Union 480 v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Apr 4, 2014

Citation: 748 F.3d 281

Docket Number: 12-6253

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.