Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03092/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03092-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO
Appellant
Nuclear Power Division of The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Appellee
The Babcock & Wilcox Company
Appellee
The Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

LBD 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

M Y 2 190. 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ) 

BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS, ) 

BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS AND HELPERS, ) 

AFL-CIO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY, ) 

THE BABCOCK & WILCOX CONSTRUCTION ) 

COMPANY, INC., and the NUCLEAR ) 

POWER DIVISION OF THE BABCOCK & ) 

WILCOX COMPANY, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appel lees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3092 

(D.C. No. 87-2522-S) 

( D. Kan. ) 

Before McKAY, BARRETT, Circuit Judges, and KANE,** District Judge. 

**Honorable John L. Kane, Senior District 

District Court for the District of 

designation. 

Plaintiff-Appellant International 

Judge, United States 

Colorado, sitting by 

Brotherhood of 

Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, 

AFL-CIO brings this appeal seeking reversal of the district 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-3092 Document: 01019967296 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 1 
court's order granting summary judgment to the 

defendants-appellees. Because we agree with the district court's 

analysis and reasoning, we affirm on substantially the same 

grounds as set forth in the district court's opinion. A copy of 

that memorandum and order is attached to this order and judgment 

and is incorporated herein. In light of our disposition, we need 

not reach the issue of defendants' statute of limitations defense. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for 

the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3092 Document: 01019967296 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 2 
1 . _ ,.. -~ 

,. 

A072A 

(Re-I. 8182) 

FILED 

U.S. OIST?.ICT ,;ouar 

015T=1:C7 OF KASS,\S 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cdtH.17 4 23 fff '89 

RALP~: L. OC~O;\CH. FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS 

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF 

BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS, BLACKSMITHS, 

FORGERS AND HELPERS, AFL-CIO, 

v. 

THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY, 

THE BABCOCK & WILCOX 

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., 

and the NUCLEAR POWER 

DIVISION OF THE BABCOCK & 

WILCOX COMPANY, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants. ) ___________________ ) 

:: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: .. 

BY --·---· .vEPUTY 

AT KA:,st.3 CIT'(, ICS. 

CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 87-2522-S 

This matter is before the court on the defendants' 

motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this action to 

compel the defendants to jointly arbitrate three grievances 

which plaintiff filed. Defendant The Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company, Inc. ("Construction") was formerly a division of 

def end ant The Babcock & Wi !cox Company ( "B&W"), but became separately incorporated on March 29, 1985. Defendant the Nuclear 

Power Division of the Babcock & Wilcox Company ("Nuclear") was 

at all relevant times a division of defendant B&W. Defendant 

Construction seeks summary judgment on the grounds that it is 

and has at all times been willing to arbitrate the grievances in 

Appellate Case: 89-3092 Document: 01019967296 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 3 
, . - - - , • • a, 

.. 

A072A 

(Re-1.8182) 

-,. ' l 

question and no justiciable controversy therefore exists. 

Defendants B&W and Nuclear contend summary judjlment in their 

favor is in order because they are not parties to any collective 

bar~aining agreement to arbitrate grievances. 

A moving party is entitled to summary judgment only 

when the evidence indicates that no genuine issue of material 

fact exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. S6(c); Mau~han v. SW Servicing, 

Inc • , 7 S 8 F • 2 d 1 3 81 , 1 3 8 7 ( 1 0th Ci r • - 1 9 8 S ) • An i s sue of fa c t i s 

"material" only when the dispute is over fact~ that might affect 

the outcome of the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. 

Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The requirement 

of a "genuine" issue of fact means that the evidence is such 

that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving 

party. Id. Thus, the mere existence of some alleged factual 

dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; Id. The court· must 

consider factual inferences tending to show triable issues in 

the light most favorable to the existence of those issues. 

United States v. O'Block, 788 F. 2d 1433, 1435 (10th Cir. 1986). 

The court must also consider the record in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Bee v. Greaves, 744 F.2d 

1387, 1396 (10th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1214 

( 1 9 8 S ) . The 1 an g u age of Ru 1 e S 6 ( a ) man d ate s the en t ry of sum -

mary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that 

. party's case and on which that party wi 11 bear the burden of 

proof at triai. 

(1986). 

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 89-3092 Document: 01019967296 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 4 
. . . .. 

A072A 

(Rev. 8182) 

- . ·-·~---- - -------

A short chronology of the various agreements between 

the parties will make apparent the outcome mandated on these 

motions. Plaintiff and Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company, 

as a division of B&W, first entered into a Nuclear Power Generation Maintenance Agreement ("NPG") on September 17, 1976 ("' 76 

NPG"). That agreement provided that all disputes between the 

parties (with exceptions not relevant here) would be submitted 

to arbitration. During 1984, a dispute arose between plaintiff 

and B&W and its divisions. The parties met . in December of 1984 

and negotiated an addendum to the '76 NPG. For purposes of this 

motion, the writings generated out of those meetings indicate 

that representatives of defendant B&W, defendant Nuclear and the 

Babcock & Wilcox Construction Division of B&W were all parties 

to the addendum. The addendum was intended by the parties to be 

incorporated into and become part of the '76 NPG. 

The · '-76 NPG provided that the = agreement · could be terminated at any time upon ninety days' written notice from any 

party. On June 21, 1985, defendant B&W sent written notice to 

plaintiff that it was terminating the '76 NPG. On July 15, 

1985, plaintiff and defendant Construction negotiated a revised 

NPG ("'85 NPG"). The agreement a 1 so provided that a 11 g ri evances (with exceptions not applicable here) would be submitted 

to arbitration. The ~rievances plaintiff now seeks to submit to 

arbitration were filed on August 29, 1986, September 3, 1986, 

and March 20, 1987. 

Plaintiff seeks in this action to compel B&W, Construction and · Nuclear to submit jointly to arbitration of the 

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 89-3092 Document: 01019967296 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 5 
,..... 

. ' ~ .; ..... ... 

DES:SAR:rs 

A072A 

<Rev. 8182) 

grievances in question. Plaintiff cites as authority the December 1984 addendum to the '76 NPG to which all three defendants 

appeared to a~reed. However, by letter of June 21, 1985, that 

agreement was terminated. Thus, the addendum was terminated and 

would have no legal effect in compelling arbitrations and grievances arising in 1986 and 1987. At the ti me those grievances 

arose, the only effective agreement in existence was the '85 

NPG, and the separately incorporated defendant Construction was 

the only signatory to that agreement. Thus, the court cannot 

compel defendants B&W and Nuclear to submit to arbitration, as 

they were u n d er no e ff e c t i v e a g re em en t t o d o so • The i r mo t i on 

for summary judgment will be ~ranted. Further, since defendant 

Construction has agreed to submit to arbitration, its motion for 

summary judgment will be granted as well. 

IT IS BY THE COURT THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant 

Babcock & Wilcox Construction, Inc. 's motion for summary judgment is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants Babcock 

& Wilcox Company and the Nuclear Power Division of the Babcock & 

Wilcox Company's motion for summary judgment is granted. 

Kansas. 

DATED: This /] day of March, 1989, at Kansas City, 

DALEE. SAFFE 

United States 

- 4 -

ct Judge 

Appellate Case: 89-3092 Document: 01019967296 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 6