2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-23-2004 

# Lo c al 221 v . Quak e r M fg P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-4230

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" L ocal 221 v

. Quake r M fg " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 390. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/390* The Honorable Louis H. Pol lak, Senior Dist rict Judge for the United States Distri ct Court f

or the Eastern District

of Pennsy lvania , si tti ng by des ignati on. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 03-4230

___________ LO CA L 2 21- G B AK ER Y, C ON FE CT IO NE RY , TO BA CC O W OR KE RS A ND GR AIN MIL LER S (BC TG M), A FL-C IO
v. QUAKER MANUFACTURING, LLC, Appellant

On A ppeal from the Un ited States District Co urt for the M iddle D istrict of P enns ylvania Distri ct Court J udge: The Honorable Yvette Kane

(D.C. No. 01-cv-02450)

___________ A rg ue d o n M ay 5 , 2004 Bef ore: SL OV ITE R, F UE NT ES , Circuit Judges , and PO LL AK , Distri ct Judge
. * (Opinion Fi led: August 23, 2004)2 Paul J. Dellasega (argued) Thomas , Tho mas & Hafe r, LLP 305 North Front St

reet P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999

Counsel for

Appellant Ira H. Weinstock Jason M. Weinstock ( Argued) Ir a H. Wein st ock , P .C. 800 North Second Str eet Harrisburg, PA 17102

Counsel for

Appellee

________________________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

________________________ FUEN TES, Circuit

Judge : Ap pellee , Loc al 221 -G, B akery, C onf ection ery, Tob acco Wo rkers a nd G rain Millers, AF L-CIO (“U nion ”), is a labor organization that repres ents employees of Appell ant, Quaker Manufacturing, LLC (“Quaker”). In November 199 7, Quaker and Union enter ed into a Collective Bar ga in in g Ag re eme nt(“ CBA” ) in ef fec t t hr oug h Oct obe r 2 000 . Th e CBA outli nes a three -ste p process f o r settlin g grievanc es. I f this grievanc e procedure fail s, the CB A p rov ides that t he g riev anc e m ay be sub mitte d to arb itratio n. Quaker subs eque ntly decid ed to c lose o ne of its foo d plan ts , l ocate d in Shiremanst own, Pennsyl vania. Quaker ent ered into a Closure Agree ment (“CA”) with Union repres enting employe es at t he plant . The CA superceded theCBA where the term s were incon sistent. However, remaini ng CBA provisi ons were inc orpo rate d into t he CA by refe ren ce.3

The CA prov ides a s evera nce b onu s to employe es permanently terminated as a res ult of the pla nt closu re. In A pril 200 1, U nion filed a gene ral griev ance for em plo yees an d former emp loy ee s who were on workers’ compensation and dis abili ty , and who did not recei ve the ful l sever ance pay and benefit s pursuant to the CA. Union fol lowed the gri evance procedu re outline d in the CB A, b ut the p arties fa il ed to rea ch a settlement. In June 2001, Union request ed that

Quaker submit t

he grievance to ar

bitr ation. However, Quaker refused to arbit rate. As a result , Union file d suit in the Dis tri ct Court, clai ming that Quaker’s re fusal to arbit rate t he grievance viol ated the CBA and the CA . Uni on ar gued th atth e CBA provideda right

to arbi tration, a nd t hat, und er a plain readi ng of the CA, thi s arbi tration provi sion was incorpor ated i nto the CA by reference. The Distri ct Court gr anted Union ’ s
mo tion for sum ma ry judg me nt. Quaker file d timel y appea l to t his Cou rt. We re view a dist rict court’ s grant

of
summ ary judg men t de novo . O n app eal, Q uake r argu es that th e CB A w as co mp letely supercededby the CA and, therefore, that the re is no survivi ng obligat ion to ar bitr ate under the CBA . Quaker al so argues t hat the Distri ct Court i nterpreted the C A incorrectl y by ignori ng a ty pographica l err or in a pr ovis ion that specifi call y pr ecludes arbit rati on of grie van ces relat ed to certa in su bjec t ma tter, in clud ing the p ayme nt o f se ver anc e bo nus es. We are not convinced by Quaker’s first arg ument. However, bec ause there is an obvious typograp hical erro r in a pr ovisio n of the C A th at spec ifically limits arb itration in certain circum stance s, we vaca te the D istrict Co urt’ s grant of summary j udgment and remand this c ase for fur ther pro cee din gs o n th e inte rpre tatio n of this p rov ision of th e C A.4 I. Union argues that portions of the CBA, including § 3. 04, which addresse s arbit rati on, survive d because they were expl icitly incorpor ated into th e CA byre ferenc e. The C A provides: [T]he November 3, 1997 to October 29 , 2000 Collective Bargai ning Agreement (“Current

CBA ”) be tween [Q uaker] an d Un ion is superced ed by this Closure Ag reem ent. Th e cu rren t CB A is am end ed a s sh ow n in Par agr aph 28 b elow
. The remaini ng provisi ons of the cur rent CBA are incor

porated by

refere nce h erein and are made a part of this Closure Agreement . To the extent that any r emaining pr ovisi on in the current Coll ecti ve B argain in g A greem ent co nflicts w ith the ter ms o f this Clo sure Ag reem ent, th e term s of the C losu re A gre em ent w ill pre vail. App. at 18 (emphasi s added). Paragraph 28 ( entitled “Union Representation”) is unre late d to arbitratio n or g rievan ce pro cedu res. Th erefo re, th e CA, by i ts pl ain te rms, i ncorporates secti on 3.04 (entitl ed “Grievance Pr ocedure”) of the CBA to the ext ent that t his sec tion does not contr adict

any ot her CA provisi on. We reject Qua ker’s firs t argument th at no arb it ra ti on o bl ig atio ns ex is t u nde r t he CA. The CA conta ins clea r langu age in dicatin g that th e CB A w as no t com pletely superceded by the CA. Interpreting t he plain l angu age o f the C A, the CB A’s a rbitration prov ision is incorpor ated by r eference, exce pt w here it sp ec if ic al ly co nf li ct s wi thth e CA. The re fo re , w e find that t

he arbit rati on provisi on in the CBA survive s to the extent that i t does not

confli ct wit h provi si ons of

th e CA. How ever, as Q uake r poin ts out, the CA explic itl y r estr icts arbitrati on in certain i nstances. Under Paragraph 8 of t he CA: “The parti es agree to discus s in the Labo r5

Management meeting, disput es regar ding the application of [ specifi ed p aragrap hs] of this Closure Agreement .” App. at 26. These spec ifie d paragraphs include : 4 (Date o f Closu re and S chedu le of Re duction); 11 (Enhanced Severance ) ; 14 (Em ployee Transition S ervices); 18 (Em ployees Curren tly on STD and L TD ); 19 (Employe es Currently off Work on Worker’s Compensati on); and 22 (O rderly Operations an d Shu tdown - Code of Co nduct).
Id. (em pha sis ad ded ). The C A goes on to st ate: “Disputes regardi ng these par agraphs ar e not subject to the grievance ar

bitr ationprocedure or

NLRB charges. ” Id. Thu s, the C A re stricts arbit rati on proceedi ngs, but only when they c oncern the s ubject matter of these s pecifi ed paragraphs. The CB A g rievan ce pro cedu re requ iring arb itration c ontinu es to ap ply to all oth er su bjec t ma tter u nde r the CA
. In the inst ant case, Union’ s grie vance is ba sed on sever ance pay ments owed pursuant to Paragraph 12 of t

he CA. Paragraph 1 2 states: “An enhanced s everance bonus will be payable to Em ployees w ho ar e perm anen tly termin ate d as a res ult of t he closure of the Shi re man st own Plantand w ho m eet all of the req uirem ents as outline d in this a gre em ent.” Ap p. at 2 7. T he p arag rap h th en o utlin es a for mu la fo r en han ced sev eran ce b onu ses. Union argues that arbi tration concerning such se verance pay ments is not res tri cted under the CA because Paragraph 12 i s not l ist ed as containing s ubject matter preclude d from arbit rati on. How ever, Quaker clai ms that a t ypogr aphicalerror

exist s in the provis ion of the CA limi ting ar

bitr ation. Although Paragr aph 12, pert aining to the enhanced severance bonus formula, is not

include d among the topi cs for which t he CA restri cts ar

bitr ation, Quak e r6

argues that, due to a typogr aphicalerror , Paragr aph 11 was mistak enly l isted among those provisi ons for which arbi tration is preclude d. Quakercontends t hat thenumber “11” rather than the number“12” mistakenl y pr ecedes the title “Enhanced Sever ance” in t he provis ion of the CA limit ing arbi tration. Quaker argues that, at the very least , the issue of a ty pographica l error

in a contract presents a dispute of m ateri al fact suffici ent to warr ant den ial of sum ma ry judg me nt. Examining the CA, ther e does appear to be an i nconsistency i n the provi sion l imiting arbit rati on of cert ain subj ect matter. Thi s prov is ion refe rs to t he paragraph entitled “Enhanced Severance” as Paragraph “11. ” Elsewhere i n the te xt of the CA , howe ver, Paragraph 11 is entitl ed “Past Service Accrual ,” an d this p aragra ph d iscusse s the d ate to which past se rvice a ccrua l is adjus ted. A pp. at 2 7. Par agrap h 11 does not, in f act, per tain to enha nced seve rance bene fit s. Actuall y, Paragraph 12 i s enti tled “ Enhanced Severance Bo nus ,” and descri bes the seve rance bon us pa yable to employe es permanently terminated as
a resu lt of t he S hire ma nsto wn plan t clos ure . Id. The Distri ct Court ba sed it s grant of Union ’s motion for s ummary judgment on the fact

that Par agraph 12 was not i ncluded among the pr ovi si ons pr ec lu de d f ro m ar bi tr atio n un de r t

he CA. Howe ve r, we agree with Quaker that lis ting Par agraph “11” among the restricted provis ions rather t han Paragraph “12” was
a typographicalerror because Paragraph 12 actuallyaddresses enhanced severance bonuses.

Union do es no t sp ec ifi ca lly contest this assert ion, and desc rib es the apparent mis match of the paragra ph number and i t s t i t l e a s a “d i sc r ep an cy ” i n the CA. Un i on Br
. at 20
. We7

belie ve that

the mismat ch resul ted from a typogr aphicalerror and that , regardless, an inconsi stency

exists in the C A th at aff ects the interpre tation o f a pro vision centra l to t he dispu te in th is ca se. We, therefore, fi nd that t he existence of the t

ypogr aphicalerror

rais es a ge nui ne is sue of m ateri al fa ct su ffic ient t o de fea t a m otio n fo r sum ma ry judg me nt. A cc or di ng ly, we vaca te the D istrict Co urt’s gra nt of s um mary jud gm ent to Union, and
r emand this case for fur ther pr oceedings on whether the CA li mits ar bitr ation of

disput es
con cern ing paym ent o f se ver anc e bo nus es.