Opinion ID: 4149524
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dismissal of Claims Asserted on behalf of Dirr

Text: Before bringing an action under Section 301 of the LMRA, a litigant must generally exhaust all available administrative remedies agreed upon by the employer and the union. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U.S. 650, 652 (1965). This Court has recognized three exceptions to the exhaustion requirement: “(1) when the employer 7 repudiates the private grievance machinery; (2) when resort to administrative remedies would be futile; and (3) when the employer is joined in a [] claim against the union” for breaching its duty of fair representation. Sisco v. Consol. Rail Corp., 732 F.2d 1188, 1190 (3d Cir. 1984). Nonetheless, an employee cannot sidestep the administrative grievance process “unless he attempted to utilize the contractual procedures for settling his dispute with his employer.” Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 563 (1976); see also Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 184 (1967) (“[I]t is settled that the employee must at least attempt to exhaust exclusive grievance and arbitration procedures established by the bargaining agreement.”). PEMSA concedes that it did not invoke the three-step grievance process on behalf of Dirr. Rather, PEMSA argues that it satisfied the requirement that it attempt to use the CBA dispute resolution process by sending a union representative to attend and present a defense for Dirr at the meeting in which MONOC terminated his employment. (See App. 114a–115a) Because any such attempt was prior to or contemporaneous with the discipline imposed on Dirr—the termination of his employment—it cannot constitute an attempt to challenge Dirr’s discipline through the CBA dispute resolution mechanism. Accordingly, the District Court did not err in dismissing PEMSA’s claims on behalf of Dirr. B. Summary Judgment on the Claims Concering Elliott and Kramer We engage in a plenary review of a district court’s grant of summary judgment, “apply[ing] the same test the district court should have utilized initially.” Giles v. 8 Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir. 2009). A motion for summary judgment is properly granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). Any questions of fact or inferences must be considered “in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Peters v. Del. River Port Auth., 16 F.3d 1346, 1349 (3d Cir. 1994). Under Article 4(A)(v) of the CBA, MONOC “retains and reserves unto itself, without limitation, all powers, rights, authority, duties and responsibilities vested in it . . . [t]o remediate, counsel, suspend, demote, discharge, or take any other appropriate disciplinary action for just cause against any employee consistent with the terms of this [CBA], subject to the grievance procedure.” (App. 762a) Article 6(1) of the CBA provides the specific terms on which MONOC may impose discipline. (App. 764a– 770a.) The CBA also provides that in conducting an investigation for potential disciplinary action, “[t]he investigating manager shall make determinations regarding the credibility of each person who provides information to the manager during an investigation” and “[s]uch determinations shall be made within the investigating manager’s discretion, and . . . may form the basis in whole, or in part, for disciplinary action.” (App. 764a) Under the CBA, MONOC had “the right to discharge an employee for a first offense” of any of more than twenty separately enumerated 9 infractions. (App 767a.) Moreover, MONOC retained “sole discretion [to] consider mitigating circumstances and determine a lesser penalty is warranted.” (Id.) PEMSA argues that whether “just cause” existed with regard to MONOC’s discipline imposed on Elliott and the termination of Kramer involves questions of fact and, thus, the District Court should not have granted summary judgment in favor of MONOC with regard to those claims. PEMSA supports this argument by citing to a number of cases where deference was given to an arbitrator with respect to determining when “just cause” exists. There is, however, no arbitration clause in the CBA at issue in this case and the language of the CBA specifically provides MONOC with discretion in determining the degree of discipline to impose on employees. Thus, the CBA unambiguously gives MONOC the discretion to make just cause determinations. Furthermore, when considered in its entirety, the CBA defines more than twenty instances of specific conduct that may constitute “just cause” for termination of employment. Stated otherwise, when one of those more than twenty types of infractions occur, then “just cause” for discipline exists.
MONOC had issued four disciplinary units to Elliott, a full-time emergency medical technician (“EMT”), for violating company policy prohibiting the carrying of a patient. Under Article 6(1)(C)(iii)(a) of the CBA, MONOC had the right to impose four disciplinary units for the first incident that causes physical harm to a person due to a violation of MONOC policies and procedures. (App. 766a.) There is no dispute that in 10 August of 2012 Elliott had carried a hospice patient in his arms in violation of MONOC Policy No. 726. The patient complained of pain at the time of the improper handling, and the patient’s wife later complained to MONOC that the improper handling had caused the patient pain and aggravated an existing back injury. Two MONOC investigators who looked into the incident spoke with Elliott and the patient’s wife about the allegations. PEMSA concedes that Elliott violated the policy by carrying the patient in his arms, the patient complained of pain during the improper handling,4 Elliott failed to file an incident report with regard to the incident, and the patient’s wife later complained to MONOC about the incident. PEMSA argues that MONOC’s decision to impose the disciplinary units was improper because (1) the evidence was insufficient to show that Elliott’s actions caused the patient harm; and (2) MONOC did not conduct a sufficiently thorough investigation into the incident. There was, however, a factual basis for MONOC’s finding that the patient suffered physical harm. The discipline imposed is not inconsistent with the terms of the CBA. Furthermore, the CBA explicitly gives MONOC investigating managers the discretion to determine credibility and whether the evidence warrants discipline. PEMSA’s disagreement with how MONOC conducted its investigation and with the weight MONOC accorded certain evidence ignores the fact that the CBA ceded to MONOC the prerogative of making credibility determinations and that “such 4 PEMSA disputes the characterization of the patient’s complaints as “crying out” in pain, but acknowledges that the patient “stated ‘[o]uch that hurts’” during the improper handling. (Appellant Br. 7) 11 determinations may form the basis in whole, or in part, for disciplinary action.” (App. 764a.) Discipline imposed based upon determinations left to the discretion of MONOC does not violate the CBA. Thus, because MONOC’s actions in imposing the disciplinary units on Elliott were in accordance with the discretion provided to it under the CBA, the District Court properly granted summary judgment in favor of MONOC.
MONOC terminated Kramer’s employment as a per diem EMT after he refused to work a shift with a nurse with whom he had a prior dispute. This refusal occurred on November 1, 2012, while New Jersey was under a state of emergency in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. Kramer had been scheduled to work a shift starting at 9:00 a.m. that day, but arrived at MONOC’s headquarters at 5:30 a.m. upon a manager’s request that he report to work three hours early. When he was notified that he would be working with the nurse, Kramer declined the shift and left the job site, despite being warned that he would be suspended if he did not work the shift. MONOC ultimately terminated Kramer’s employment pursuant to Article 6(1), subpart E(xvi) of the CBA, which specifies that “[t]he refusal by an employee to follow the directives and instructions of Management concerning a work-related matter, absent an objective belief that the directive is patently illegal, immoral, or would result in direct and immediate harm to a patient or other person” constitutes grounds for termination. (App. 769a) PEMSA argues that Kramer believed he was entitled to decline the assignment because he was not scheduled to work that shift, that other employees did not receive 12 discipline as severe for similar conduct,5 and that MONOC terminated Kramer because of personal animus.6 Even if Kramer had a subjective belief that he did not need to work that shift and that MONOC was biased against him, Kramer does not deny that he committed an act subjecting him to termination under the CBA. Furthermore, even if, as Kramer suggests, other employees received lesser punishment for similar offenses, the CBA specifically gives MONOC the “sole discretion” to consider any lesser penalties or mitigating factors and was not required to give lesser punishment in consideration of such factors. (App. 767a.) Thus, MONOC acted within the substantial discretion afforded it under the CBA in determining that there was just cause to terminate Kramer’s employment. Accordingly, the District Court appropriately granted summary judgment in favor of MONOC.