Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02767/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02767-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Granite Rock Company,

Plaintiff,

 v.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Freight,

Construction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and

Helpers, Local No. 287,

Defendant.

 /

NO. C 04-02767 JW 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON

THE PLEADINGS, OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, FOR A STAY 

PENDING ARBITRATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Granite Rock Company ("Plaintiff" or "Granite Rock") brings this action against

Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Freight, Construction, General Drivers,

Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 287 ("Defendant" or "Local 287") pursuant to Section 301(a)

of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), for disputes arising out of alleged

contract violations. Plaintiff alleges that there was a ratified collective bargaining agreement between

the parties, and that Defendant violated the agreement by engaging in an unlawful strike. Defendant

now moves for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), or, in the alternative, for a stay of

proceedings pending arbitration of the dispute. 

A hearing on Defendant's motion was set for July 11, 2005. However, this Court finds it

appropriate to take the motion under submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

1(b). Based on the arguments advanced by counsel in their briefs and on the pleadings, Defendant's

motion is DENIED.

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 57 Filed 07/19/05 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Granite Rock is a California company engaged in the business of supplying ready

mixed concrete for commercial use. Defendant Local 287 is a voluntary, unincorporated association,

commonly known as and doing business as a "labor organization" within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §

185. Local 287 represented certain Granite Rock employees at its San Jose facility, and is the

collective bargaining representative for employees engaged as drivers at the San Jose facility. 

From March 1, 1999 to April 30, 2004 Plaintiff and Defendant were parties to a collective

bargaining agreement. (Amended Complaint, hereinafter "Am. Compl.," ¶ 6.) Preliminary

negotiations for a new agreement commenced in March 2004. Negotiations continued throughout

April and May without success. In early June 2004, after the agreement's expiration, bargaining unit

employees at the San Jose facility went out on strike. (Am. Compl. ¶ 8.) After further negotiations,

Plaintiff alleges the parties reached an agreement at 4:00 am on Friday, July 2, 2004 on terms for a

new collective bargaining agreement covering the period from May 1, 2004 to April 30, 2008. (Am.

Compl. ¶ 8.) In addition, Plaintiff claims that George Netto, Local 287's Business Representative,

called to inform Plaintiff that the agreement was ratified later that same day by a vote of all the union

employees. (Am. Compl. ¶ 10.) Defendant denies that the agreement was ever ratified. 

Plaintiff also alleges that the parties agreed to maintain the same contract language as the

previous collective bargaining agreement, except where noted in the July 2, 2005 agreement. (Am.

Compl. ¶ 9.) The relevant portions to this action, Plaintiff alleges, are Section 19 ("Discharge /

Suspension"), Section 20 ("Grievance Procedure") and Section 22 ("Strikes and Lockouts"). Plaintiff

alleges that the parties agreed to discuss a "Back to Work Agreement" at a later date, and that any such

agreement would be subject to the grievance procedure set forth in the July 2, 2005 collective

bargaining agreement. That agreement included a no-strike clause and a compulsory grievance and

arbitration procedure for the settlement of any disputes "arising under" the agreement. (Am. Compl. ¶

11.) 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the July 2, 2005 collective bargaining agreement by

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 57 Filed 07/19/05 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

calling union members and instructing them not to return to work. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

wanted "guaranteed amnesty" for its employees and employees at Plaintiff's other facilities in three

counties covered by separate collective bargaining agreements. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

violated the agreement by not participating in the compulsory grievance and arbitration provision set

forth in the ratified collective bargaining agreement and by engaging in an unlawful strike. (Am.

Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiff also alleges that it is willing to participate in the grievance and arbitration

proceedings provided in the collective bargaining agreement. (Am. Compl. ¶ 17.) The strike has now

ended. However, Plaintiff still prays for damages from the violation of the alleged collective

bargaining agreement. 

Local 287 has moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(c), or, in the alternative, for a stay of these proceedings pending arbitration of the dispute. Local

287 argues that Plaintiff's alleged claim is subject to arbitration rather than judicial resolution. 

Plaintiff responds that a jury, not an arbitrator, must decide the dispute. 

III. STANDARDS

"After the pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may

move for judgment on the pleadings." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(c). For purposes of a 12(c) motion, the

allegations of the non-moving party are accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party

which were denied are assumed false. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896

F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990). Judgment on the pleadings is only proper when the moving party

clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains and that the moving party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Id. 

If satisfied that a proceeding involves an issue referable to arbitration under a written

agreement, a court "shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such

arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement." 9 U.S.C. § 3. However,

parties can only be required to submit to arbitration if they agreed to so submit. AT & T Technologies

v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986). Unless the parties clearly

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 57 Filed 07/19/05 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

provide otherwise, "the question of whether the parties agreed to arbitrate is to be decided by the

court, not the arbitrator." Id. at 649. The court, if satisfied of the making of an agreement for

arbitration, may "make an order directing the parties to proceed to arbitration." 9 U.S.C. § 4. 

IV. DISCUSSION

Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act provides for suits by and against labor

organizations. See 29 U.S.C. § 301(a). The plaintiff, under a § 301 claim, must sufficiently plead that

there was a violation of a contract "between an employer and a labor organization representing

employees affecting commerce as defined in this chapter." Id. Defendant Local 287 admits that it is a

"labor organization" within the meaning of § 301. (Answer ¶ 2.) In its answer and 12(c) motion,

however, Defendant denies the ratification of the July 2, 2005 contract between the parties. In

addition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's complaint is legally deficient on its face because the

contract dispute must be decided in arbitration rather than in the courts. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff's complaint sufficiently alleges a claim under § 301. Plaintiff

alleges an oral agreement and employee ratification of the collective bargaining agreement, specifying

the date the agreement was made, July 2, 2005, and the person who informed Plaintiff of the

ratification, Union representative George Netto. Plaintiff has included a copy of the alleged contract

as an exhibit to its complaint. Plaintiff has also satisfactorily alleged a violation of the agreement,

claiming that Defendant Local 287 prompted employees to go out on strike in violation of the

agreement. In this 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court accepts as true the allegations

of the Plaintiff Granite Rock, here the non-moving party. See Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1450. 

Moreover, at this point in the litigation, there is a clearly a disputed issue of material fact as to

whether there was a ratified contract at all. See id.

Defendant's argument that the dispute is subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of

the contract, rather than court adjudication, is misplaced at this time. The provisions of the contract

would only be binding if there was a contract in the first place; yet, Defendant claims the contract was

never ratified. Defendant, of course, is allowed to plead in the alternative under Federal Rule of Civil

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 57 Filed 07/19/05 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

Procedure 8(e)(2). However, Defendant cannot avail itself of arbitration while at the same time

insisting that the agreement was never ratified. Moreover, for the purposes of a 12(c) motion, the

Court need not determine the merits of the dispute; here, it is enough that a material issue of fact

remains over the existence of the contract. See Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1550 (judgment on the

pleadings is only proper when moving party clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains). 

Thus, Defendant's 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleading is denied. 

The Court also denies Defendant's alternative motion for a stay of these proceedings pending

arbitration. A stay of a proceeding pending arbitration will only be granted if the court is satisfied that

the dispute involves an issue referable to arbitration according to a written agreement. 9 U.S.C. § 3. 

However, "the existence and scope of a contract to arbitrate are questions for the court to determine in

the first instance." California Trucking Ass'n v. Teamsters Local 70, 679 F.2d 1275, 1280 (9th Cir.

1982). Unless the parties agree otherwise, the courts decide whether the parties have agreed to

arbitrate specific issues. Id. Here, Defendant Local 287 denies the ratification of the July 2, 2005

collective bargaining agreement. Thus, the Court must first decide whether a contract exists before

either party can be subject to or ordered to take their dispute to arbitration. The Court cannot

determine from the pleadings before it, as a matter of law, whether the contract was ratified. Without

a judicial determination of the existence and scope of the alleged collective bargaining agreement, the

Court will not stay these proceedings pending arbitration at this time.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for judgment on the

pleadings, or, in the alternative, for an order staying these proceedings pending arbitration.

Dated: July 18, 2005

04cv2767pleadings

 /s/ James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 57 Filed 07/19/05 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Alan Sam Levins alevins@littler.com

Deborah Rice drice@littler.com

Duane B. Beeson dbeeson@beesontayer.com

Gabriel Saul Levine glevine@littler.com

Philip Paturzo ppaturzo@littler.com

Dated: July 19, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /jwchambers/ 

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 57 Filed 07/19/05 Page 6 of 6