Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03132/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03132-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3132

___________

Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco *

Workers and Grain Millers, Local *

100G, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States 

* District Court for the

v. * Northern District of Iowa.

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Penford Products Company, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2004

 Filed: August 16, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Local 100G of the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers

Union (Union) appeals from the district court’s1

 grant of summary judgment in favor

of Penford Products Co. (Penford). The Union argues that its Collective Bargaining

Agreement (CBA) with Penford requires arbitration of a grievance filed on behalf of

a member whom Penford refused to allow to return to work after she resigned and,

Appellate Case: 03-3132 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2004 Entry ID: 1799833 
-2-

some two months later, claimed that her resignation was an episode of irrational

behavior caused by an unspecified illness. Upon de novo review, we agree with the

district court’s resolution. See Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and

Reinforcing Ironworkers v. EFCO Corp., 359 F.3d 954, 955 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard

of review).

The district court appropriately concluded that the grievance does not present

an arbitrable dispute. The CBA provides for arbitration of any matter which “relates

to the interpretation or application of the provisions of [the CBA].” Although the

Union mentioned “loss of seniority” under the CBA in its grievance, loss of seniority

is entirely collateral to the Union’s principal argument – that a Union member may

rescind her resignation because she tendered it while unable to make a “voluntary and

competent decision” to resign. This argument rests on the assertion that employee

competence is a general contractual prerequisite to Penford’s valid acceptance of

employee resignations; it does not plausibly involve interpretation or application of

the provisions of the CBA. Cf. Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC. v. Int’l Bhd. of

Teamsters, 300 F.3d 945, 949-50 (8th Cir. 2002) (noting that the presumption in favor

of arbitration does not apply to matters “which go beyond the interpretation and

application of contract terms.” (citation omitted)). We are satisfied that Penford

never intended to arbitrate such a claim. Id. at 949.

 

We affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3132 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2004 Entry ID: 1799833