Opinion ID: 204770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The District Court's Grant of Summary Judgment With Respect to Enforcement of the AFSM-100 Settlement

Text: In deciding that the AFSM-100 Settlement resolved this dispute, the District Court relied on our opinion in United Mine Workers of Am. v. Consolidation Coal Co., 666 F.2d 806 (3d Cir.1981). In that case, the parties' collective bargaining agreement contained a binding arbitration provision but allowed disputes to be resolved short of arbitration by settlement. 666 F.2d at 807-08. Any such settlement was, by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, final and binding. Id. The parties had entered into such a settlement agreement, and the plaintiff, claiming breach of that agreement, sought to enforce it in federal court. Id. at 808. The defendant claimed that the district court lacked jurisdiction because of the mandate in the collective bargaining agreement for binding arbitration of all disputes. Id. at 809. We held, however, that the existence of that arbitration provision did not necessarily preclude judicial enforcement of a settlement. Rather, noting that section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act empowers federal courts to adjudicate suits for violations of contracts between an employee and a labor organization, we held that we could enforce a settlement agreement if it was final and binding and sufficiently specific as to be capable of implementation. Id. at 809-10; see also Barnes & Tucker, 561 F.2d at 1096-97. We cautioned, however, that courts are bound to exercise the utmost restraint to avoid intruding on the bargained-for method of dispute resolution, and when enforcement of an arbitration award or settlement agreement is sought under section 301, the court must be able to say `with positive assurance' that the award or settlement was intended to cover the dispute. Consolidation Coal, 666 F.2d at 811. Thus, Consolidation Coal sets out three requirements for a District Court to enforce a settlement agreement to resolve a dispute that is otherwise governed by a binding arbitration provision: (1) the agreement must be final and binding; (2) the agreement must be sufficiently specific to be capable of implementation; and (3) there must be positive assurance that the agreement is intended to cover the relevant dispute. [7] Relying on that rule, the District Court here first held that the AFSM-100 Settlement was final and binding because Article 15 (under which the grievance was brought) specifically allowed for settlement of grievances short of arbitration. The Court next held that, because the AFSM-100 Settlement called for mail handlers to be removed first when there was any reduction in work, it unambiguously applied even where the reduction in work was the result of modifications to the AFSM-100. Consequently, it found the agreement sufficiently specific as to be enforceable, and further concluded `with positive assurance' that the [AFSM-100 Settlement] aimed to address the present grievance. (App. at 13-14.) Despite the District Court's thoughtful approach to this case, we cannot agree that there is a `positive assurance' that the [AFSM-100 Settlement] aimed to address the present grievance. ( Id. ) On the contrary, the present dispute implicates the staffing opportunities of the mail handlers as well as the clerks and, for that reason alone, is a tripartite jurisdictional dispute, which the AFSM-100 Settlement did not and could not address.