Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01041/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01041-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
DynCorp International LLC
Appellee
International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1023

DISTRICT LODGE 4 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS 

AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, an unincorporated labor 

organization; LOCAL LODGE 24 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, an unincorporated labor 

organization,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v.

DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Delaware corporation,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 16-1041

DISTRICT LODGE 4 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS 

AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, an unincorporated labor 

organization; LOCAL LODGE 24 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, an unincorporated labor 

organization,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL LLC, a Delaware corporation,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District 

of Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (8:14-cv-03987-JFM)

Appeal: 16-1041 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 1 of 6
2

Argued: May 10, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ARGUED: J. Michael McGuire, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL LLP, Baltimore, 

Maryland, for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Andrew Dean Roth, 

BREDHOFF & KAISER, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for 

Appellees/Cross-Appellants. ON BRIEF: Elizabeth TorphyDonzella, SHAWE & ROSENTHAL LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Devki K. Virk, BREDHOFF & KAISER, 

P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1041 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 2 of 6
3

PER CURIAM:

These cross-appeals arise from a dispute over the proper 

interpretation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement 

(CBA) between the parties, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants 

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 

Local Lodge 24, and International Association of Machinists and 

Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 4 (the Unions), and DefendantAppellant/Cross-Appellee DynCorp International LLC. When the 

Unions sued DynCorp to compel arbitration of a union officer’s 

grievance over his termination, the district court ordered 

arbitration but denied the Unions’ motion for an award of 

attorney’s fees as a sanction for DynCorp’s alleged lack of 

justification for its resistance to arbitration. 

The cardinal facts are undisputed. DynCorp, a government 

military contractor, terminated the employment of Gregg French, 

an officer of the local union, after French responded as follows 

to an Air Force Contract Officer Technical Representative’s 

request for an overdue report: “We will shit you something.”*

According to the Unions, that phrase refers to generating

necessary paperwork. Thereafter, the Air Force Contract Officer 

 * French does not dispute saying something to this effect, 

but he does contend that he made this remark to a fellow DynCorp 

employee, not to the Air Force Contract Officer Technical 

Representative, as a means of informing his colleague that the 

requested paperwork needed to be produced. 

Appeal: 16-1041 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 3 of 6
4

overseeing the contract on which French was working requested 

French’s removal from the contract. DynCorp acceded to that 

request and terminated French’s employment. 

Although the CBA between the parties generally provided for 

arbitration of most workplace employment disputes involving 

union members, the CBA contained what the parties have referred 

to as a “carve out” from the broad arbitration provision. As 

relevant here, the “carve out” provision provides as follows:

Section 7 - Security Regulations

(A) The parties to this Agreement hereby recognize

the Company’s obligations in its contracts with the 

Government pertaining to security, security 

clearances, and access to Government-managed property, 

and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement is 

intended to place the Company in violation of its 

contracts and/or security agreements with the 

Government. 

(B) In the event that the U.S. Military Service or 

other Government Agency duly concerned with security 

regulations or operations on Government-managed 

property, advises the Company that any employee in the 

Union bargaining unit is restricted from access to 

Government-managed property, or restricted from work 

on or access to classified information and material, 

the Union agrees that such action as the Company may 

take pursuant to its contractual and/or security 

obligations to the Government will not be contested, 

nor will such action be a subject of the grievance 

procedure contained in Article III of this Agreement. 

(C) In the event that such Government Agency 

following the taking of such action within one year 

advises the Company that such an employee is no longer 

restricted from access to Government-managed property 

or restricted from work on or access to classified 

information and material, the Company shall promptly 

reinstate the employee with seniority, to the same job 

Appeal: 16-1041 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 4 of 6
5

classification held at the time such action was taken, 

subject to the applicable seniority provisions of the 

Agreement, if he/she promptly applies for such 

reinstatement within fifteen (15) days.

J.A. 56. DynCorp refused to arbitrate the French grievance,

based essentially on its theory that, because the Air Force 

Contract Officer requested French’s removal in accordance with 

the government’s rights under Dyncorp’s government-contract,

French’s termination fell within the scope of the Section 7 

“carve out.” The Unions argued, to the contrary, that the 

“carve out” was limited to adverse employment actions that touch 

or concern particularized security issues of importance to the 

government and that French’s termination did not fall within 

such parameters. 

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and 

the district court agreed with the Union’s construction of the 

CBA. The court further concluded, however, that DynCorp’s 

resistance to arbitration under Section 7 was not so barren of

legally plausible interpretive arguments that the refusal to 

arbitrate amounted to bad faith. Cf. United Food & Commercial 

Workers, Local 400 v. Marvel Poultry Co., 876 F.2d 346, 351 (4th 

Cir. 1989) (observing that, regarding requests for attorney’s 

fees, challenges to arbitrability “must be considered 

sufficiently ‘justified’ . . . unless there is literally no 

reasonably arguable legal support for them”). Accordingly, the 

Appeal: 16-1041 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 5 of 6
6

district court denied the Unions’ request for an award of 

attorney’s fees in seeking to compel arbitration.

Having had the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, 

and having fully considered the parties’ contentions, we affirm 

for the reasons stated by the district court. Int’l Ass’n of 

Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 24 v. Dyncorp Int’l

LLC, No. 8:14-cv-03987-JFM, 2015 WL 9302377 (D. Md. Dec. 2, 

2015).

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-1041 Doc: 38 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 6 of 6