Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02250/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02250-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 826, AFL-CIO
Appellant
Navajo Refining Company
Appellee

Document Text:

,. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F L B D 

United States C:Ourc of Appeals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth Circuit 

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING 

ENGINEERS LOCAL NO. 826, AFL-CIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NAVAJO REFINING COMPANY, a Delaware 

corporation 

Defendant-Appellee. 

AP 2 5 1991 

> ROBERT L. HOECKER 

~ Clerk 

) 

) 

) No. 90-2250 

) (D.C. No. 89-941-JC) 

) (D. N.M.) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 

No. 826, AFL-CIO (Union) brought suit in_:the federal district 

court for the District of New Mexico against Navajo Refining 

Company (Company) claiming that the Company breached collective 

bargaining agreements by failing to notify the Union of the 

adoption of an employee stock option plan for the Company's 

nonunion employees. This appeal 1 is from an order 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. 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

(continued on next page) 

Appellate Case: 90-2250 Document: 010110105139 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 1 
court finding that the claim of the Union, although styled as an 

action for breach of certain collective bargaining agreements, was 

actually an unfair labor practice claim preempted by the Labor 

Management Relations Act. International Union of Operating 

Engineers Local No. 826, AFL-CIO v. Navajo Refining Co., No. 89-

0941JC, slip op. at 1 (D.N.M. Sept. 25, 1990) (District Court 

Order). We review the district court's jurisdictional ruling de 

novo. Cf. Pytlik v. Professional Resources, Ltd., 887 F.2d 1371, 

1375 (10th Cir. 1989) (personal jurisdiction). 

The Union concedes that if there has been no breach of the 

collective bargaining agreement the district court was without 

jurisdiction in this matter. Union's Opening Brief at 16. For 

the district court to have jurisdiction, an unfair practice claim 

must be a collateral issue attached to a genuine section 30l(a) 

dispute. 2 Trustees of the Colo. Statewide Iron Workers (Erector) 

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Trust Fund v. A & P Steel, Inc., 

812 F.2d 1518, 1526 (10th Cir. 1987). We agree with the district 

court that this complaint at most alleges an unfair labor practice 

and thus is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National 

Labor Relations Board. New Mexico Dist. Council of Carpenters v. 

Mayhew Co., 664 F.2d 215, 217 (10th Cir. 1981). 

(continued from preceeding page) 

assist the determination of this 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

appeal. See 

The case is 

Fed. R. App. P. 

therefore ordered 

2 Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act vests 

federal courts with jurisdiction to adjudicate alleged breaches of 

collective bargaining agreements. See 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (1988). 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2250 Document: 010110105139 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 2 
The background facts of this matter are undisputed. In 1985, 

as part of a general capital restructuring, a benefit plan 

entitled "Holly Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan" (ESOP) 

was established by the Company's parent, Holly Corporation, to 

become effective on August 1, 1985. The ESOP, like its 

predecessor stock ownership plan, specifically excluded employees 

covered by a collective bargaining agreement from participation 

eligibility. Rec. Vol. II, Doc. 5, Exhibit A [Holly Corporation 

Tax Credit Employee Stock Ownership Plan] at 2; id. [Holly 

Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan as Amended and Restated] 

at 12. That exclusion notwithstanding, the Union argues that the 

terms of its collective bargaining agreements required the Company 

to give the Union notice of the establishment of the ESOP. 

The Union and the Company were parties to two separate 

collective bargaining agreements relevant to this dispute, one 

with the trucking division, Rec. Vol. I, Doc. 4, Exhibit F, and 

another with the balance of the Company's union employees. Id. at 

Exhibit C. The material portions of the agreements 

substantially the same and provide as follows: 

BENEFIT PLANS: The Company agrees to administer for the 

employees covered by this Agreement and during its term, 

the following employee benefit plans: 

Military Leave 

Supplemental Disability Award 

Accidental Death & Dismemberment 

Thrift Plan 

Long Term Disability Insurance 

Home & Hospital Medical Expense 

Retirement Plan 

Short Term Disability Pay Plan 

Group Life Insurance 

Occupational Accidental Insurance 

Supplemental Life Insurance Plan. 

3 

are 

Appellate Case: 90-2250 Document: 010110105139 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 3 
CHANGES IN BENEFIT PLANS: In the event the Company 

desires to increase the cost or to decrease the benefits 

of any such plans, it will present such changes to the 

Union at least thirty (30) days prior to the proposed 

effective date of such changes with a complete 

explanation of the reasons for such changes.3 

Id. (emphasis added). 

The Union argues that this provision obligated the Company to 

inform the Union of the creation of the ESOP for the nonunion 

employees. We cannot agree. It is obvious that only the benefits 

listed in the agreements were subject to the thirty-day notice 

provision and equally obvious that the ESOP was not among the 

listed benefits. 4 The district court was therefore correct in 

3 The list of benefits in 

division are the following: 

Retirement Plan 

Group Life Insurance Plan 

the agreement with the 

Home and Hospital Expense Plan and Dental Care Plan 

Accidental Death and Dismemberment Plan 

Long Term Disability Plan 

Military Service Plan 

Disability Pay Plan 

Occupational Accident Plan 

Supplemental Disability Award Plan 

Thrift Plan 

trucking 

Rec. Vol. I, Doc. 4, Exhibit F. The provisions regarding changes 

in benefit plans are identical. 

4 The Union argues that, under the collective bargaining 

agreement with the trucking division, written notice of the 

Company's adoption of the ESOP was required. Because the notice 

requirement in the trucking agreement referred only to notices 

"herein provided," and because the ESOP was not a benefit provided 

in the agreement and subject to the notice requirement, we reject 

this argument for the reasons noted above. 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2250 Document: 010110105139 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 4 
holding that there had been no breach of this section of the 

collective bargain agreements. 5 

The Union further argues that the Company breached Article X 

of the collective bargaining agreements. Article X prohibits the 

Company from discriminating against any employee because of his or 

her affiliation with the Union. 6 The Union argues that by 

establishing an ESOP available only to nonunion employees, the 

Company discriminated against its union employees because of their 

union membership. There is no evidence, however, that the Company 

attempted to keep the fact of the ESOP confidential or that the 

Company ever attempted to prohibit the Union from bargaining for 

inclusion of the ESOP in the list of benefits included in its 

collective bargaining agreements. Neither is there evidence of a 

history of collective bargaining between the Union and the Company 

demonstrating that this clause was intended to mandate identical 

benefits for both union and nonunion employees. Cf. Syufy Enters. 

v. Northern Cal. State Ass'n of IATSE Locals, 631 F.2d 124, 126 

(9th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 983 (1981) (provisions of 

a collective bargaining agreement must be viewed in light of the 

history of the negotiations giving rise to them). We hold, 

5 The district court found that "the posting of notices of the 

Company's adoption of the Employee Stock Option Plan in 1985 on 22 

Company bulletin boards was adequate notice to the Union of the 

Company's adoption of such plan." District Court Order at 1. The 

Union argues that a material question of fact exists as to whether 

the notice given was sufficient. Because we hold that notice was 

not required at all under these circumstances, we do not reach the 

issue of sufficiency of the notice. We may affirm the district 

court on any grounds supported by the record. Scivally v. Time 

Ins. Co., 724 F.2d 101, 103 (10th Cir. 1983). 

6 The nondiscrimination provision 

agreement appears in Article XII. 

5 

of the trucking division 

Appellate Case: 90-2250 Document: 010110105139 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 5 
therefore, that the creation of the ESOP for nonunion employees 

did not breach the nondiscrimination clauses of the collective 

bargaining agreements. 

The threshold issue here is whether the collective bargaining 

agreements required the Company to give notice of the creation of 

the ESOP. Since we have concluded that no such notice was 

required under the facts before us, there was no breach of the 

notice provisions of the agreements and thus no jurisdiction in 

the district court. Whether the Union had either actual or 

t t . t· . . 1 t 7 

cons rue ive no ice is irre evan. 

The Union's motion for costs and attorneys' fees incurred in 

perfecting this appeal is denied. The judgment of the United 

States District Court for the District of New Mexico is AFFIRMED. 8 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

7 The Union also argues that 29 u.s.c. § 158(d)(l), requiring 

sixty days notice of the modification of a collective bargaining 

agreement, applies to the facts of this case. However, this claim 

is also a claim of an unfair labor practice and, without more, is 

not within the jurisdiction of the federal district court. 

Arizona Laborers, Teamsters & Cement Masons Local 395 Health & 

Welfare Trust Fund v. Conquer Cartage Co., 753 F.2d 1512, 1516-17 

(9th Cir. 1985). 

8 The jurisdiction of the district court to entertain the 

Union's complaint is the threshold issue in this matter. To the 

extent that the District Court Order granted "summary judgment" to 

the Company as to the Union's claims of breach of the collective 

bargaining agreements, claims appropriate for resolution only if 

the court is vested with jurisdiction, the District Court Order is 

vacated for want of jurisdiction. 

6 

Appellate Case: 90-2250 Document: 010110105139 Date Filed: 04/25/1991 Page: 6