Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30399 F O L G E R C O F F E E C O . , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t, v. IN T E R N A T IO N A L U N IO N , e t a l., D e fe n d a n ts -A p p e lle e s .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he Eas t e r n Di s t r i c to f Lo ui s i ana U . S. D . C . N o. 08- C V
- 1630 B ef ore G A R W O O D , W IE N E R , an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * P l ai n t i f f

- ap pel l an tF ol ger C of fee C om pa n y ( “ F ol ger” ) app eal s t h e di st ri ct c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o uph o l d t he Ar bi t r at i o n Aw ar d en t ere d b y Arb i t r at o rD i ane M assey on J an u ary 21, 2 008 . I n a w ri t t en opi n i on , A rbi t rat or M assey sustai n ed t h e defen da n t - ap pel l ees’( Inter n ati on alU n i on , U n i t ed A u t om obi l e, A erospace & A gr i c ul t uralI m pl em entW or ker s of A m er i c a and i t s l oc aluni on, Loc alN o. 1805 ( “ U ni on” ) ) gr i evanc e and det er m i ned t hat Fol ger di d vi ol at e t h e 2 0 0 2 -2 005 Col l e c t i ve B ar ga i ni ng Agr e e m e nt( “ CB A” ) b y o ut s o ur c i ng and / o rs ubc o nt r ac t i ng United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 8, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-30399 Document: 00511045275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2010N o. 09- 30399

Plaintiff-appell antfir st brought this action in the district co urt und er Section 301 of 1 the Labor Mana ge ment Rel atio ns Act of 194 7, as amen ded, 29 U.S.C. §18 5 (“LMRA”), asking the district co urt to vacate the Arb itrationAward. See Resol ution Perfor ma nce Produc ts, LLC v. Pape r Al li ed Indus. Chem. and Energy 2 Wo rkers I

n t ’l U n io n, eta l. , 480 F.3 d 760 , 767 (5thC ir. 2 007) (“Wedistinguish ed Folgeronth e gro undth at the CBA in Beaird was explicit in permittings ub c ontractin g and cont ain ed no limit atio n on subco ntractin g[,] . . . [ w he reas although the CBA in Folger] expl icit ly gave man a gem ent th e ri ght tosub co ntr act , . . . th at cl au sewa s c ontr a dict edb yo th er s.”). 2 cert ai n cap du m pi n g w o rk an d that t h e conti n u ed ou t sourci n g an d/ or s u b c o n t r a c t i n go f

s a i d wo r k v i o l a t e s t h e 2 0 0 2
- 2 0 0 5 CBAo ra n ys u b s e q u e n tCBA . T h e A rbi t rat or or dered tha tt h e contes t ed cap du m p in g t ask b e assi gn ed ba ck t o bargaini n g u n i tem pl oyees. O n A p r i l14, 2009, t he di st r i c tc our tuphel d M as se y’ s January 2008 A rbi t rat i on A w ard an d en t ered j u dg m en tin favor of t h e U n i on . Folgerapp eal s,

1 con te n di n g t h at t h e arbi t rat i on deci si on shou l d be va cat ed becau se A rbi t rat or M as s e y e xc e e de d t he s c o pe o f he ra ut ho r i t y pur s uant t o t he CB A w he n s he o r d e r e d F o lg e rto re -a s s ig n th e s u b c o n tr a c te d w o r k b a c k to b a r g a in in gu n it e m p lo y e e s . F o lg e ra ls o a r g u e s th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t e r r e d w h e n it r e lie d o n th is C o u r t’s d e c is io n in T h e F o lg erC offee Co . v . In t’l Un ion , et a l. , 9 0 5 F . 2 d 10 8 ( 5 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) ( “F

ol ger I ” ) , a dec i si on t hat– ac c or di ng t o t he Pl ai nt i f f

- A ppel l ant– w as c a lle d in to q u e s tio n a n d /o ro v e r r u le d b yth is C o u r t’s s u b s e q u e n t d e c is io n in B ea irdIn d u s., In c., v. In t’l Un ion , et a l. , 4 0 4 F .3 d 9 4 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). W e r ej e c tF o l g e r ’ s a r g u me n t s p r e s e n t e d o n a p p e a l , a n d a s a r e s u l t , we af f i r m t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n t o e nf o r c e t he Ar bi t r at i o n Aw ar d. Fi r s t , o ur de c i s i o n i n Bea i r d di d no to ve r r ul e t hi s Cour t ’ s e ar l i er d eci si o n i n F ol ger I. 2 Se c o nd, w e r e m ai n b o und byo urdeci si on i n F ol ger I, a s i ti s t he e ar l i e ro f t he tw o . R i os v. C i ty of

D elR i o, T

ex. , 444 F . 3d 417 , 4 25 n . 8 ( 5th C i r. 200 6) ( “ W h ere Case: 09-30399 Document: 00511045275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2010N o. 09- 30399

3 tw o p r e v io u s h o ld in g s o rlin e s o f p r e c e d e n t co n flic t th e e a r lie ro p in io n co n tr o ls andi s t he b i ndi ng pr e c e de nti n t hi s c i r c ui t( ab s e ntan i nt e r ve ni ng ho l di ng t o t he c o n tr a r yb yth e S u p r e m e C o u r t o rth is co u r t e n b a n c ).”). F u r th e r m o r e a n d m o s t s ig n ific a n tly , w e n o te th a t t h e p a r tie s p r e s e n tly bef ore the C ou rtin the current d i spu t e a re the exact sam e parti es t h at pres en t ed t o t he Cour ti n Fol ge r I, a n d t he C B Ai s es se nt i al l y t he s am e c ont r ac t ual agreem en t . Folgerha s fai l ed to a d e qu atel y exp l ai n w h y t h i s C ou rt ’ s pri or de c i s i o n r e ga r di ng Fol ge r ’ s ab i l i t y t o s ubc o nt r ac t o ut ba r ga i ni ng uni tpo s i t i o ns s ho ul d no l o nge r ap pl y t o e va l uat e t he c ur r e nt di s put e . Con s e que nt l y, w e f i nd o ur s e l ve s b o und byo urde c i s i o n i n F ol ger I. And as a r e s ul t , w e c anno tc o nc l ude t hatAr bi t r at o rM as s e y e xc e e de d he ra r bi t r ati ve a ut ho r i t y o rv i o l at e d t he exp ress t erm s of

t h e C B Ai n deter m i n i n g th a t t h e C B Aprohibi t s Folgerf rom s u b c o n tr a c tin go u t t h e ca p d u m p in gw o r k . Acc o r di ngl y, w e AFF I RM t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s de c i s i o n t o e nf o r c e t he Arb i t r at i o n Aw ar d. Case: 09-30399 Document: 00511045275 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2010