UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) AM ER IC AN P OSTA L WO RK ER S’ UN ION , A F L- CI O , ) ) ) P laintif f, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 08-2200 (RM C) ) UN ITED STA TES P OSTA L SER VI CE , ) ) ) Defendan t. ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Am e ri can P os tal W ork ers ’ Un io n, AFL -C I O ( “A P W U” o r “Un io n”) b rou ght th is s uit alleg ing that the United States Postal Service (“ Postal S ervic e”) brea ched a collec tive barg aining ag ree ment betwee n the par ties by failing to comply

with an ar

bitration awa

rd findingliability . On July 14 , 2 00 9, the Cou

rt dis mis se d th is c a se fo r l a c k o f j ur isdict io n. Th e Court he ld t hat th e c a se is not ripe beca

use the unde rlying a

rbit ration aw ard ha s been r emande d for the de termination of a
reme dy . The Union now move s for re consideration. I. F AC TS Pursuant to Article 15 of the collective barg aining ag ree ment (“CB A”) betwee n the Union and the Postal Service , the parties have a g ree d to resolve their disputes throug h g rieva

nce a nd b in d in g ar

b it r a ti o n . Co mp l. [D kt. # 1 ] ¶ 8 ; D e f
. ’ s M o t. to D is mi s s [D kt. # 7 ] ( “ D e f
. ’ s M o t. ” ) , E x. 3 ( CB A) a t 90 -1 08 . T he dis pute un derl y in g th is c a se wa s w he the r t he Pos ta l Se rv ic e pr op e rl y assig ned flat prepa

ration work on the Autom ated F lats Sorting Mac hine 100 (“ AFSM 100”) at the Sacra mento, California, processing and dis tribution cente r t o the Mailhandler Craft or whether , as-2-

the Un ion c la ime d, the fl a t pr e pa

ratio n w or

k s ho uld have be e n a ssi g ne d to the Cle rk Cr a ft . Co mpl
. ¶ 7. This dispute went to a rbitration, and on J une 28, 2008, the Arbitrator issued an Aw ard stating
a s f oll ow s: I n light of the hi story of t his particula r facility , the chang eover

to the AFSM 100 did n o t cause an oper ational cha ng e; and ther efor e the continuing a ssignment of flat pre p work fo[r] the AF SM 100 to t he Clerks w a s r e qu ir e d
. T h e r e a s s ign me n t o f th a t w o r

k to the Ma ilh and le rs wa s im

pr op e r. Th e APWUand

the Se rv ic e sh a ll s ub mit the iss ue of

re me dy to t he Ar tic le 15 pr oc e ss. Id ., Ex . 1 at 6. Pursuant to the Arbitrator ’s ruling , on Fe bruar y 25, 2009, the par

ties remande d the
case “to the Ar

ticle 15 g rieva

nce- arbitration procedur e for further proce ssing, up to and inc luding Reg ional arbitration.” Id ., Ex . 2 at 1.

Th e Un ion

fi le d a Com pla int in t his Court a g a ins t th e Pos ta l Se rv ic e a lle g ingthat, de sp ite re pe a te d r e qu e sts , th e Pos ta l Se rv ic e ha d no t state d un e qu ivo c a lly that it wo uld c omp ly wi th the Awa rd and that the P ostal Service ’s failure t o comply with the Award constit uted a br eac h of the CBA. Compl. ¶¶ 11-13. T he Postal Service move d to dismiss , asser ting that the Union’s claim was
n o tri p e b ec au s e t h e re m ed y i s s u e i s s t i l l p en d i n g. T h e C o u rt gra n t edt h e m o t i o nt o d i s m i s s , fi n d i n g:

A fe dera l court only

has jurisd i cti on to vacate or e nforc e a la bor arbitration awar d i f it is final and binding
. Ge ne ra l D riv e rs, W arehouseme n and Helpers, Local Union No. 89 v. Riss & Co. , 372 U. S. 5 17 , 5 19 (1 96 3) ; Mi llm e n Loc al 5 50v . W e lls Ex te rio r Tr im , 828 F.2d 1373, 1375 (9th Cir. 1987)
. An arbitration awar d that postpones the deter mination o f a re m edy

is not final and binding. Millmen Local 550 , 8 28 F .2 d at 13 76 ; accord Local Union 15 v . Exe lon Corp. , 20 04 WL76 94 31 , * 4 (N. D. I ll. Ap r. 8, 20 04 ); Public Serv. E lec. & Gas Co. v. System Council U-2 , 703 F.2d 68, 69- 70 (3d Cir. 1983). Fur ther, “ a union and its members must exhaust the remedies provided in their c ollective bar g aining ag ree ment with the employ er befor e they

s ee k j u d icial interve ntion.” Nat ’l Po st O ffi c e Ma il Handlers Local No. 305, LIUNA, AFL-CIO v. U .S. Postal Service ,-3- 5 9 4 F. 2 d 9 8 8 , 9 9 1 (4 t h C i r. 1 9 7 9 ) ( ci t i n g Republic Stee l Corp. v. M a ddox , 3 7 9 U. S. 650, 652-53 (1965)). . . . H ere , the Court lacks jurisdiction to vacate or enfor ce the J une 28, 2008, ar bitration awa

rd beca use the awa

rd is not final and binding — the g rievancearbitration procedur e provide d in the CBA ha s not been e x hausted. Although A PW U pr ev ai l ed on the issue of liability , the re medy

has not b ee n d ec ided. On F ebrua ry 25, 2009, the par

ties remande d the case to the g rieva

nce- a r b it r ation proce dure f

or fur ther proc essing , “up to and including Reg ional arbitration.” Def .’s Mot., Ex . 2 at 1. Also, APWU has not shown that the exhaustion of remedies is unworka ble. APWU’s complaint is premature a nd must be dismis sed fo r l ac k of jurisdiction. Me m. O p. [Dk

t. # 12 ] at

4- 5. Th e Un ion s eeks reco nside ratio n und e r F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Procedur e 59(e ) and 60( b)(6)
. II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A Rule 59( e) m o t ion is discretionary and nee d not be g rante d unless the district court finds that ther e is an int erve ning chang e of c ontrolling law , the ava ilability of newevidenc e, or the ne ed to cor

rec t a clea r er ror or preve nt manifest injustice.” Fox v. Am. Airlines Inc. , 389 F.3d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 6 (D
. C
. C i r. 2 0 0 4 ) ( q u o t i n g Firestone v. Fire

stone , 76 F.3d 1205, 1208 (D.C. C ir. 1996)). A Rule 59(e) motion is not “simply an opportunit y to rea rgue fa cts and theor ies upon which a court h a s a lr e a dy ruled.” N

ew Y o rk v. U nited States , 880 F. Supp. 37, 38 (D.D .C. 1995). Nor is it an
avenue for a

“losing party

. . . to raise ne w issues that could have been r aised pre viously .” Kattan

v . D ist ric t of Colum bia , 995 F.2d 274, 276 ( D.C. Cir. 1993). Fe dera l Rule o f C ivil P roce dure 60 (b )( 6) is a

c a tc h- a ll p ro vis ion

tha t gi ve s cou

rt s disc re tio n to va c a te or mod if y jud g me nts wh e n it is “appropr iate to ac complish justi ce,” Klapprott v. United States , 335 U.S. 601, 614-15 (1949) , but it should be applied only in ext raor dinary circ umstances, Kramer v. Gate s , 4 81 F .3 d 7 88 , 7 91 (D .C. C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Ack

ermann v . United States , 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950)).-4- III . A NA LY SIS The Union a

rgues that it should be permitted to move for war d to enforc e the Aw ard, interpre ting the A war d as thoug h it gr an t s final injunctive re lief and a rguing that the case was
re mand e d for

a se pa rate and pa ra lle l pr oc e e din gre g ard ingmon e tary re lie f. Th e Un ion

ma de thi s
same argume nt p re vio us ly , a nd the Court re je c te d th e argume nt f

ind ingthat it

la c ke d ju ri sd ic tio n to
vac a te o r e n f o r c e th e A w ar d

b e c a u s e it w a s n o t f

in a l a n d b in d in g . T h e g r ie v an c e - arbitration proce dure pr ovided in the CBA ha s not been e x hausted, and althoug h APWU prevailed on the issue of lia bil ity , the re me dy ha s no t be e n d e c ide d. Ac c or din g ly , th e Un ion ’s mot ion to r e c on sid e r w ill be de nie d. F or the same re a so n, the Court fi nd s th e re are no e xtra or din ary c ir c ums tanc e s in

thi s c a se that would require the dismiss al to be vacated or modified under Rule 60( b)(6)
. See Krame r , 481 F.3d at 791. The Union a lso at t ac h ed to its moti on for r econside ration an A pril 16, 1992, M em o randum of U nderstanding(“MOU ”) be tween the Postal S ervic e and A PW U. SeeM o t. f or Reconsider ation, Ex . B ( MOU). The MOU provides that disputes a re submitted to arbitration and that the arbitrator’s awa

rd shall be final and binding. Id ., Ex. B at 2. Th e Un ion re a so ns that be c a us e arbitration awar ds g ener ally are intended to be final and binding, the Awar d in this case must have been f inal and binding
. S

e e id
. , E x . A (De cl. of McCa rthy , Direc tor of the Clerk D ivision of the APWU). This arg ument is errone ous. On its face , the Awa rd in this case w as not final and binding — it found liabilit y

and did not deter

mine a re medy
. I n the a lt e r

n a t i v e , t h e U n i o nar g u e s t h a tt h e A w ar d i s i n s u f f i c i e n t l y c l e ar t o p e r m it enfor ceme nt and t hat t he case should be remanded to the arbitrator for clar ification. The Court does not find the Awa

rd to be unc lear . The Aw ard f inds liabili ty

and dire cts the par

ties to submit the-5-

iss ue of re me dy to t he Ar tic le 15 pr oc e ss.

IV . C ON CL USI ON F or the re a so ns state d a

bo ve , th e Un ion ’s mot ion fo r re c on sid e ratio n [Dkt. # 1 4] w ill be denie d. A memorializing orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.
Date: Septembe r 2, 2009 __________/s/______________________________ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER Un i t edS t at es Di s t ri ct J u d ge