Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01795/USCOURTS-ca10-86-01795-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

P U B L I S H 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT l='E i3 3 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clt>rk- UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 

INTERNATIONAL UNION; UNITED MINE 

WORKERS OF AMERICA, DISTRICT 22; 

UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, 

LOCAL UNION 8330, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

U. S. STEEL MINING, INC., and 

KAISER STEEL CORPORATION, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 86-1795 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH 

(D.C. No. 85-C-1060W) 

Earl v. Brown, Jr., Washington, 

Washington, D.C., and Daniel B. 

Edelman, Washington, D.C., was also 

Appellants 

D.C., (Michael H. Holland, 

Edelman, Yablonski, Roth and 

on the brief) for PlaintiffsJeffrey T. Johnson, Holland & Hart, Denver, Colorado (Warren L. 

Tomlinson, Holland & Hart, Denver, Colorado, was also on the 

brief) for Defendant-Appellee Kaiser Steel Corporation 

Leo M. Pruett and S~G. Clark, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for 

Defendant-Appellee u. s. Steel Mining, Inc. 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, and 

DUMBAULD, District Judge* 

HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge 

* The Honorable Edward Dumbauld, United States District Judge 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 

Appellate Case: 86-1795 Document: 010110149804 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 1 
This apppeal arises from a suit brought under §301 of the 

Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. §185, by the 

United Mine Workers of America, International Union, District 22, 

and Local No. 8003 (collectively referred to as "UMWA"), against 

U.S. Steel Mining Company ("U.S. Mining") for breach of contract 

and against Kaiser Steel Corporation ("Kaiser") for tortious 

interference with contract. The district court granted U.S. 

Steel's and Kaiser's motions for summary judgment, United Mine 

Workers v. U.S. Steel Mining Co., 636 F.Supp. 151 (D. Utah 1986), 

and UMWA appeals. For substantially the same reasons stated by 

the district court, we affirm. 

I. 

The material facts are not disputed. U.S. Mining is a 

subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation, engaged in the production of 

coal from mines throughout the United States, including the 

Geneva/Horse Canyon Mine which is subject to this lawsuit. U.S. 

Mining is a member of the Bituminous Coal Operators' Association, 

Inc., ( "BCOA"), a multi employer bargaining unit made up of many 

coal operators and associations. 

Kaiser is also engaged in 

Sunnyside Mine is located near 

the production of coal. Its 

the Geneva/Horse Canyon Mine. 

Kaiser purchased the Geneva/Horse Canyon Mine as a means of access 

to its South Lease properties. Kaiser is not a member of the 

BCOA. 

Employees of the Geneva/Horse Canyon Mine are represented by 

UMWA. Both UMWA and U.S. Mining are parties to the 1984 National 

Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement ("NBCWA"). 

2 

Appellate Case: 86-1795 Document: 010110149804 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 2 
The Geneva/Horse Canyon Mine was owned and operated by U.S. 

Steel or U.S. Mining from 1946 through 1984. U.S. Mining actively 

produced coal from the mine until October 13, 1982, at which time 

the majority of the mine employees were laid off. The mine was 

maintained on idle standby until December 31, 1983, at which time 

U.S. Mining officially declared the mine abandoned and 

indefinitely closed. Kaiser purchased the Geneva/Horse Canyon 

Mine in December 1984. At no time since the sale has Kaiser 

reopened the mine or engaged employees to produce coal at the 

mine. Kaiser has performed a limited amount of maintenance and 

security work there, mainly equipment salvage and recovery and 

also the provision of guard and security facilities at the mine. 

II. 

The central issue is whether the obligations imposed by the 

successorship clause of the NBCWA1 required U.S. Mining to secure 

the agreement of Kaiser to accept the responsibilities under the 

NBCWA in connection with the sale of the Geneva/Horse Canyon Mine. 

The district court correctly focused on whether Kaiser purchased 

an "operation" within the meaning of the successorship clause. 

1 

Article 1 of the 1984 NBCWA provides in pertinent part: 

In consideration of the Union's execution of 

this Agreement, each Employer promises that 

its operations covered by this Agreement shall 

not be sold, conveyed, or otherwise 

transferred or assigned to any successor 

without first securing the agreement of the 

successor to assume the Employer's obligations 

under this Agreement. 

Addendum to Brief of Appellants, pp. A.1-2. 

3 

Appellate Case: 86-1795 Document: 010110149804 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 3 
The court held that 

a mining "operation," for purposes of Article 

I of the 1984 NBCWA, refers to a mine site or 

facility where active coal mining operations 

are being conducted. That is, an "operation" 

connotes a mine that is actively producing 

coal and operating as a coal mine. Thus, a 

mine that has ceased to function as an active 

coal mine is not an "operation," assuming the 

mine was closed in good faith . 

• • . There is no suggestion in the 

record that U. S. Mining closed the mine in 

bad faith or that the closure was motivated to 

avoid successorship obligations. Based on 

these undisputed facts, the court is of the 

opinion that Kaiser did not purchase an 

"operation." Consequently, the successorship 

clause, Article I of the 1984 NBCWA, did not 

require U. S. Mining to secure Kaiser's 

unconditional agreement to assume U. S. 

Mining's obligations under the 1984 NBCWA and 

Kaiser did not assume such obligations. It 

follows, then, that the laid-off former 

employees of the Geneva/Horse Canyon Mine are 

not entitled to panel rights at Kaiser's 

mines. 

636 F. Supp. at 153-54 (footnote omitted). 

III. 

UMWA argues the district court erred by holding that the term 

"operations" in Article I of the NBCWA refers to mines that are 

actively producing coal. UMWA says that the trial court's 

decision is contrary to federal labor policy regarding 

successorship clauses. The court's decision "read out of the 

parties' agreement the preservation of all job rights which 

pertain to inactive mines." Brief of Appellants at 2. 

In construing the term "operations," the district court 

relied on District 6, UMWA v. North American Coal Corporation, No. 

4 

Appellate Case: 86-1795 Document: 010110149804 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 4 
C-279-242 (S.D. Ohio 1980). In North American, the mine at issue 

was sold over a year after the mine ceased operating and 11 months 

after the announcement that the mine would not be reopened. Vol. 

III, Tab A, pp. 2-3. There was no suggestion that the closing of 

the mine was in bad faith or motivated to avoid the 

responsibilities of the successorship clause. Id. at 6. 

Therefore, since there was no sale of an "operation" as 

contemplated by Article I of the NBCWA, North American did not 

violate the successorship clause by failing to secure the 

subsequent buyer's agreement to assume North American's 

obligations under the collective bargaining agreement. 

The district court's ruling here is further supported by the 

recent holding in In re Chateaugay Corp., 

5024, (2nd Cir. Dec. 12, 1989) that the 

F. 2d , No. 89-

"term 'operations' within the successorship clause 

of Article I of the Coal Wage Agreement does not 

apply to the sale of a mine that has been 

permanently closed in good faith by a seller that 

retains no financial interest in any potential 

future mining activity at the site, and [where] 

there is no evidence that the same operations, as 

when the Agreement was executed, could reasonably 

be contemplated or conducted. 

The UMWA relies heavily on Lone Star Steel Co. v. NLRB, 639 

Fo2d 545 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 911 (1980). The UMWA 

argues that Lone Star declared that under the successorship clause 

"employees are assured that the fruits of collective bargaining 

would survive a change in ownership." Brief of Appellants at 9 

(emphasis added in the brief). This was said to be an important 

element of federal labor policy. However, Lone Star held that the 

clause was a mandatory subject of bargaining so that by striking 

5 

Appellate Case: 86-1795 Document: 010110149804 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 5 
to compel its acceptance, the union did not violate § 8(b)(3) of 

the National Labor Relations Act. 639 F.2d at 549, 556. The 

issues ~ere thus decided under the statute, and not as a matter of 

contract interpretation which is presented here. The purpose of 

the clause is generally what the UMWA says, but the terms of the 

obligation agreed on were specific and tied to the sale, 

conveyance, or other transfer or assignment of "operations covered 

by this Agreement." This contract question was not decided by 

Lone Star. For similar reasons, the reliance of UMWA on Amax Coal 

Co. v. NLRB, 614 F.2d 872 (3rd Cir. 1980), rev'd on other grounds, 

453 U.S. 322 (1981), is misplaced. 

UMWA asserts, as it did before the district court, that 

International Union, UMWA v. Eastover Mining Co., 603 F.Supp. 1038 

(W.D. Va. 1985), supports its argument that U.S. Mining was 

required to obtain Kaiser's agreement to assume the obligations 

under the collective bargaining agreement. However, we agree with 

the district court that Eastover is distinguishable. AlthoughEastover held that a sale of the closed mine was subject to the 

Article I successorship clause, the seller's closure of the mine 

was clearly motivated by a desire to avoid the successorship 

obligation. The buyer, after retaining a consulting firm for 

advice on how it could avoid the successorship obligations, 

requested that the seller close the mine and terminate the 

employees. After the seller complied with the buyer's request, 

the buyer waited over one month before purchasing the mine and 

kept the mining operations idle until the expiration of the 

collective bargaining agreement. 

attempt to circumvent the collective 

6 

Clearly, the 

bargaining 

closure was an 

agreement. 603 

Appellate Case: 86-1795 Document: 010110149804 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 6 
F.Supp. at 1044. Here, on the other hand, there was no evidence 

to suggest that the closure of the mine was collusive in nature. 

636 F. Supp. at 155. The district court noted that there was no 

evidence to indicate that the closure was motivated to avoid 

successorship obligations. Id. at 154. 

Relying on arbitration decisions from the Arbitration Review 

Board, UMWA argues that the successorship clause "applies whenever 

a signatory employer such as [U.S. Mining] sells a mine covered by 

NBCWA unless the employment obligations of the Employer were 

terminated." Brief of Appellants, p. 15. 2 We disagree. The 

arbitration decisions cited by UMWA discussing enforcement of the 

successorship clause against a subsequent operator of a closed 

mine relied on an "operational linkage" between the former 

operator and the successor before the clause would apply. See 

Standard Pocahontas Coal Corp., 78-16 (Arb. Rev. Bd., UMWA-BCOA 

1979)(when former operator makes direct contractual arrangments 

with second operator to take over and continue part or all of the 

mining operations for the benefit of the former operator, the 

second operator becomes a successor operator); Nephi Coal 

Properties, Inc., 78-17 (Arb. Rev. Bd., UMWA-BCOA 1979)(where no 

direct sale, conveyance, or other transfer or assignment of an 

2 

Pursuant to Article XXIII of the 1984 NBCWA, 

[a]ll decisions of the Arbitration Review Board 

rendered prior to the expiration of the National 

Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1978 shall 

continue to have precedential effect under this 

Agreement to the extent that the basis for such 

decisions have not been modified by subsequent 

changes in this Agreement. 

Brief of Appellants, Appendix, pp. 12-13. 

7 

Appellate Case: 86-1795 Document: 010110149804 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 7 
( 

operation takes place between a former operator of a mine and a 

subsequent operator, there is no basis for a finding that the 

subsequent operator is the successor under Article I); Bethenergy 

Mines, Inc., 84-17-87-741 (1987) (Lieberma-n, Arb.) (operational 

linkage existed since subsequent lessee was obligated to pay a 

royalty for every ton of coal mined). Here U.S. Mining did not 

retain any financial interest in the operations of the Geneva/ 

Horse Canyon Mine nor create an operational link with Kaiser. 

We are convinced that the district court's ruling on the 

contract question was correct, 3 and accordingly the judgment is 

AFFIRMED. 

3 

UMWA strenuously argues that Article XVII of the NBCWA, which 

concerns recall and seniority rights of members when a mine is 

closed or abandoned, is at odds with the district court's decision 

that the term "operation" contemplates an active and producing 

mine before the successorship clause becomes applicable. We are 

not persuaded. The mere fact that language in Article XVII allows 

employees of an abandoned or closing mine to transfer to other 

active mines of the same employer does not compel the conclusion 

that the Article I successorship clause applies to the sale of a 

mine that is no longer operating, but was closed in good faith. 

8 

Appellate Case: 86-1795 Document: 010110149804 Date Filed: 02/05/1990 Page: 8