Opinion ID: 204770
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The 2006 Grievances and Trenton Metro's Lawsuit

Text: In the spring of 2006, the planned enhancements were made to the three AFSM-100 machines at the Trenton Post Office. Subsequent to those modifications, two clerk positions were removed from each machine, while the mail handlers staffed on the machines remained. [5] In response, Trenton Metro filed a number of grievances under Article 15, alleging that by reducing the number of clerks on the AFSM-100 while leaving mail handlers in place, USPS violated the AFSM-100 Settlement. USPS responded that the staffing changes were the result of operational changes to the AFSM-100, and consequently, any dispute over those changes was a jurisdictional dispute covered by RI-399. USPS thus referred Trenton Metro's Article 15 grievances to the Local Dispute Resolution Committee pursuant to RI-399.
On May 18, 2006, prior to the resolution of any grievance at the local or national level, Trenton Metro filed suit in the District Court. Trenton Metro's complaint sought an injunction preventing USPS from in any manner transferring bargaining unit work that would be in contravention of the [AFSM-100 Settlement] as well as damages stemming from USPS's breach of the settlement. (App. at 57-58.) Trenton Metro and USPS filed cross motions for summary judgment, and on May 28, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting summary judgment to Trenton Metro on its claim for enforcement of the AFSM-100 Settlement but granting summary judgment to USPS on Trenton Metro's claim for damages. With respect to enforcement of the settlement agreement, USPS had argued that the District Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Trenton Metro's claim constituted a jurisdictional dispute that was subject to the binding arbitration provisions in RI-399. The District Court disagreed, explaining that under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), it had jurisdiction to enforce any violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization, including any settlement agreement that was final and binding and sufficiently specific to be capable of implementation. (App. at 16.) The Court determined that, because Article 15 allowed for final settlement of disputes short of arbitration, the AFSM-100 Settlement was a final adjustment of differences by a means selected by the parties, and therefore, final and binding. (App. at 20 (quoting United Mine Workers of Am. v. Barnes & Tucker Co., 561 F.2d 1093, 1096 (3d Cir.1977)).) Next, because the AFSM-100 Settlement stated that the mail handlers would be removed before the clerks in the event of any reduction in work, the agreement applied to reductions in work due to modifications to the AFSM-100 and, therefore, the agreement was sufficiently specific as to be capable of implementation. (App. at 21.) Consequently, the Court granted Trenton Metro's motion for summary judgment with respect to enforcement of the AFSM-100 Settlement. With respect to damages, because the clerks who formerly staffed the AFSM-100 were all reassigned to other positions, and because Trenton Metro had not shown that USPS would have hired any new clerks or that any clerk lost an identifiable amount of overtime wages based on a reassignment off the AFSM-100 machines, the District Court held that Trenton Metro had failed to establish any economic harm from USPS's breach. (App. at 23.) Finally, the Court denied both punitive damages and attorneys' fees, finding that the present enforcement of the [AFSM-100 Settlement was] sufficient relief for Trenton Metro. [6] (App. at 24.)