Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30399

FOLGER COFFEE CO.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

INTERNATIONAL UNION, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

U.S.D.C. No. 08-CV-1630

Before GARWOOD, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-appellant Folger Coffee Company (“Folger”) appeals the district

court’s decision to uphold the Arbitration Award entered by Arbitrator Diane

Massey on January 21, 2008. In a written opinion, Arbitrator Massey sustained

the defendant-appellees’ (International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &

Agricultural Implement Workers of America and its local union, Local No. 1805

(“Union”)) grievance and determined that Folger did violate the 2002-2005

Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) by outsourcing and/or subcontracting

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 8, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-30399 Document: 00511045275 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2010
No. 09-30399

 Plaintiff-appellant first brought this action in the district court under Section 301 of 1

the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §185 (“LMRA”), asking

the district court to vacate the Arbitration Award.

See Resolution Performance Products, LLC v. Paper Allied Indus. Chem. and Energy 2

Workers Int’l Union, et al., 480 F.3d 760, 767 (5th Cir. 2007) (“We distinguished Folger on the

ground that the CBA in Beaird was explicit in permitting subcontracting and contained no

limitation on subcontracting[,] . . . [whereas although the CBA in Folger] explicitly gave

management the right to subcontract, . . . that clause was contradicted by others.”).

2

certain cap dumping work and that the continued outsourcing and/or

subcontracting of said work violates the 2002-2005 CBA or any subsequent CBA.

The Arbitrator ordered that the contested cap dumping task be assigned back

to bargaining unit employees.

On April 14, 2009, the district court upheld Massey’s January 2008

Arbitration Award and entered judgment in favor of the Union. Folger appeals, 1

contending that the arbitration decision should be vacated because Arbitrator

Massey exceeded the scope of her authority pursuant to the CBA when she

ordered Folger to re-assign the subcontracted work back to bargaining unit

employees. Folger also argues that the district court erred when it relied on this

Court’s decision in The Folger Coffee Co. v. Int’l Union, et al., 905 F.2d 108 (5th

Cir. 1990) (“Folger I”), a decision that– according to the Plaintiff-Appellant– was

called into question and/or overruled by this Court’s subsequent decision in

Beaird Indus., Inc., v. Int’l Union, et al., 404 F.3d 942 (5th Cir. 2005). 

We reject Folger’s arguments presented on appeal, and as a result, we

affirm the district court’s decision to enforce the Arbitration Award. First, our

decision in Beaird did not overrule this Court’s earlier decision in Folger I.

2

Second, we remain bound by our decision in Folger I, as it is the earlier of the

two. Rios v. City of Del Rio, Tex., 444 F.3d 417, 425 n. 8 (5th Cir. 2006) (“Where

Case: 09-30399 Document: 00511045275 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2010
No. 09-30399

3

two previous holdings or lines of precedent conflict the earlier opinion controls

and is the binding precedent in this circuit (absent an intervening holding to the

contrary by the Supreme Court or this court en banc).”). 

Furthermore and most significantly, we note that the parties presently

before the Court in the current dispute are the exact same parties that presented

to the Court in Folger I, and the CBA is essentially the same contractual

agreement. Folger has failed to adequately explain why this Court’s prior

decision regarding Folger’s ability to subcontract out bargaining unit positions

should no longer apply to evaluate the current dispute. Consequently, we find

ourselves bound by our decision in Folger I. And as a result, we cannot conclude

that Arbitrator Massey exceeded her arbitrative authority or violated the

express terms of the CBA in determining that the CBA prohibits Folger from

subcontracting out the cap dumping work. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s decision to enforce the

Arbitration Award.

Case: 09-30399 Document: 00511045275 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/08/2010