2003 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 6-10-2003 

# T a y lor Mi l k C o I nc v

. I n tl B rhd T e a ms t e rs 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 . 02-3461

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_2003

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 2003 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
" T a y lor M i l k C o I nc v

. I n tl B rhd T

e a m s t e r s " (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 468. 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_2003/468NOT PRE CEDENT IAL THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ No. 02-3461

___________ TAY LOR M ILK CO MPA NY, a Pennsylvania Corpor ation, Appellant

v. INTERN ATION AL BR OTH ERHO OD O F TEAM STERS, AFL -CIO, an

unincorpor ated ass ociation and labor organi zati on; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOO D OF TEAMSTERS, DAIRY CONFERENCE -

USA A ND C ANA DA, an unincorporated associ ation and labor or gan iz at io n; SERVI CE PERSONNEL AND EMPLOYEE S OF THE DAI RY INDUS TRY T EAM STERS L OCA L UN ION NO . 205, an unincorpor ated

associ ation and labor or ganization

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE W EST ER N D ISTR ICT O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. Civi l No. 95-cv- 01663) Distric t Judg e: Th e H ono rable D . Broo ks Sm ith

___________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) May 23, 2003 BE FO RE : SC IRI CA , Chief Judge , SL OV ITE R, a nd N YG AA RD , Circu it Judges
.
(Fil ed June 10, 2003)2 ___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge
.

Tay lor M ilk Co mp any a ppea ls from an or der o f the D istrict Co urt determ ining that Tay lor did not suffer co gnizable d ama ges from an illegal second ary boy co tt or ch es tr at ed by t

he App el le es , I nt er na ti ona l B ro th erhoo d of Tea mst er s, et

al . O n appeal, Taylor ar gues that the Dist rict Court erred in it s int erpret ation of the col lective bargaini ng agreement and abus ed its discr etion by f aili ng to all ow additiona l damage evidence r egarding t

he profi tabil ity of

alte rnati ve plans. We have plenary revi ew over the Distri ct Court’ s int erpret ation of the bargaining agreement and we review the determ ination to pro hibit reo penin g of th e reco rd for a buse of disc retion. F inding no fa ult wi t h the de ci si on of

t he Di st ri ct Cou rt , we w i l l af

firm. I. The issue o f dam ages has b een b efore a pane l of this co urt pre viou sly in Taylor Milk Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters , 248 F.3d 239 ( 3d Cir. 2001) ( Taylor I). I n Taylor I , we add ressed both the issue of IB T’s liability for the second ary boycott and whether the Distri ct Court’ s award of $50, 000 in damages was corr ect. After affi rming the Dist

rict Court’s de termination that IBT was liabl e for damages r esulting from the second ary boy cott, we turned to the prope r determin ation of dam ages. In3

revers ing the Dis tri ct Court, we noted that “[o]ur review of t

he record reveals t

hat the Distri ct Court di d not commit clear err or insof ar as i t found t

hat TMC had failed t o prove the prof itabi lit y of Plan B and Plan C. ” Id . at 247. We were concerned, however , that the Distric t Cou rt had e rred in its evalu ation o f the pr ofitability o f Plan A b y failing to consider the v iability of the Plan as it related to the co llective bargaining a greem ent. In
rem andin g, w e gav e spe cific instru ctions to the D istrict Co urt:

If, upon remand, the Dis tri ct Court de termines that TMC would not have pre vaile d at arbi tration and ma intains its d eterm ination that Pla ns B and C wo uld not h ave b een p rofitable , it is clear tha t TM C co uld have suff

ered no damage from IBT's ac tions , as t he loss of TMC 's right to purchase t he Borden plant wo uld h ave p laced it in no w orse o f an ec ono mic position than i f it

had purchased t

he plant . In ot

her words, If TMC could not ha ve profi ted fr om purchasi ng the Borden pl ant, there c an be no basis for awarding TM C dam ages. Id . at 249. On rem and, the District Court reaffirmed its previ ous decision as to Plans B and C, and acknowledged t he need to determine if

the language of the colle ctive bargaini ng agreement prohibited t he implementation of Pl an A. Focusing on a notrans fer cl ause in t

he coll ecti ve bargai ning agree ment, the Distri ct Court f ound that Pl an A could not have been s uccessf ully i mplemented via ar bitr ation. We agree. The notransfer cl ause in the bargaining agreement states:

No work or service s presently perf ormed or hereaf

ter as signed to the c ollec tive bargaini ng unit wit h the exceptions l ist ed above, wil l be subcont

racte d, tr ansferred, l eased or as signed,1. The par agraph r eferenced by the no-t ransfer pr ovisi on lis ts the foll owing as the only exceptions: “ orange juice, dips, sour cream , cotta ge cheese, yogur t, butter, oleo, eggs, sterile products, nutrish and cul tured products, novelti es, ice cream mix, Weight W atcher s ice cr eam , and diet ice cr eam . ” Ar t. II, Sec. 6(a). 4 in whole or i n any part to any other pe rson, firm or corp oration or no n-un it em ploy ees u nless o therw ise exp ressly prov ided in this A greem ent. Articl e II, Section 6( a), at App. 70. As Plan A willtrans fer work done by Appell ees to a new facil ity, Taylor must avoi d this provisi on to demonstrate a l ikeli hood of succes s at arb itratio n. There are two possible e xcepti ons buil t into the provi sion. First , Taylor could avoi d the no-t

ransfe r claus e by showing that the product

to be tr ansferred was found in “t

he excepti ons li sted” i n the prec eding para graph. Thi s opti on is unavai ling, however, becaus e Plan A involve d trans ferring fl uid milk pr oduction and flui d milk is not one of the e numerated exceptions i n the prec eding sect ion. 1 The second exception to t he no-tr ansfer

clause i s when such acti on is “ot herwise expressly provided” i n the bargaining agreement. The Distri ct Court c orrectly found t hat al l the provisi ons identifi ed by Taylor fail ed in one material respect—none of the provisi ons “expres sly provi ded” for t he trans fer of

flui d milk production. On appeal , Taylor cite s a portion of se ction 6( d), which provides tha t “[n]othing in this Se ction shall be interpreted as limiting the E mp loyer’s right to sel l or merge i ts busi ness or go out of busine ss in whil e or in par t.” Taylor now argues that the “real intent of Plan A” was to ef

fect a merger, which would s atis fy the5

“exp ressly p rovid ed” e xcep tion to th e no- transfe r claus e. Tay lor’s relian ce on this provisi on is mispl aced. Pl an A clearl y contemplat es the out right purchase of

the Borden facility, not a merge r of operations w ith Borden . Expan ding a bu siness by pu rchase of a
new facility is n ot a “m erger” conte mp lated b y sec tion 6(d ). Thu s, Tay lor has failed to identi fy a provi sion i n the col lective bargaining agreement that expressl y provides authori zati on to tr ansfer producti on of fl uid milk t o the Borden fa cili ty and, theref ore,
ca nno t d emo ns tr at e the pr of it ab il it y of Pl an A. Tay lor also allege s that the Distric t Cou rt abus ed its dis cretion by fa iling to
reo pen the r eco rd a nd a dm it add ition al ex per t testim ony reg ard ing the a ltern ative plan s. This argu men t does not w ithstand scrutiny. In reac hing its decision, the D istrict Court correctly appli ed the fa ctors we enunciated i n Rochez Brothers, Inc. v. Rhoades , 527 F.2d 891, 894 n.6 ( 3d Cir. 1975) . We see no reason to disturb the s ubstantial di scretion affor ded to the Distri ct Court to reopen the record af ter a remand. II. For th e foreg oing reaso ns w e w ill affirm the ord er of th e D istrict Co urt.6

_________________________ TO THE C LERK:

Please f ile t he foregoi ng opinion.

/s/ Richard L. Nyg aard Circuit Judge