Court Opinion

ID: 2963579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:12:22.074158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:28.370546
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1075

                       UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
                            LOCAL 14, AFL-CIO-CLC, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs - Appellants,

                                          v.

                             INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY,

                                Defendant - Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                           Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                     ____________________

                               and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
                                        _____________

                                _____________________

               Jeffrey  Neil  Young, with  whom  McTeague,  Higbee, Libner,
               ____________________              __________________________
          MacAdam, Case & Watson was on brief for appellants.
          ______________________
               Jane  B.  Jacobs, with  whom  Andrew  E.  Zelman and  Klein,
               ________________              __________________      ______
          Zelman, Briton,  Rothermel &  Dichter, L.L.P.  were on brief  for
          _____________________________________________
          appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                  September 7, 1995
                                 ____________________

                    TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge.    The  plaintiff-appellants,
                    TORRUELLA,  Chief  Judge
                                ____________

          United Paperworkers  International Union, Local 14,  AFL-CIO, and

          International Brotherhood of Firemen  and Oilers, Local 246, AFL-

          CIO  (the  "Unions"), appeal  the  district  court's decision  on

          summary  judgment in  favor of  International Paper  Company (the

          "Company"), ruling that a recall agreement between the Unions and

          the    Company    became   unenforceable    upon    the   Unions'

          decertification.  For the following reasons, we affirm.

                                      BACKGROUND
                                      BACKGROUND

                    The Unions  and the  Company  agree that  there are  no

          material facts in dispute.  The Company owns and operates a paper

          mill in Jay, Maine  known as the Androscoggin Mill  (the "Mill").

          Between  1965  and   March  1993,  employees  at  the  Mill  were

          represented for purposes of  collective bargaining by the Unions.

          Throughout  that  time,  the Unions  and  the  Company  have been

          parties to  a series of collective  bargaining agreements setting

          forth the  terms and conditions  of employment at  the Mill.   In

          June  1987, when  the Company and  the Unions could  not reach an

          accord over a succeeding collective bargaining agreement, members

          of the  Unions engaged in an economic  strike.  The Company hired

          replacement workers during the strike.

                    In  October of 1987, the  Company laid off 151 striking

          employees  (the "Employees").   All but three  of these Employees

          had  recall rights for twelve  months after layoff.1   The twelve
                              
          ____________________

          1   The other  three  employees resigned  in 1989  pursuant to  a
          pension offer negotiated  by the Unions.  Therefore,  these three
          employees are not at issue in this case.

                                         -2-

          month period  in which  the  Employees were  eligible for  recall

          expired before the parties began strike settlement negotiations.

                    On November 16, 1987, certain Mill employees petitioned

          the  National  Labor Relations  Board  (the  "NLRB")  to  hold  a

          decertification election to determine whether the Mill  employees

          desired  continued  representation by  the  Unions.   The  actual

          election was delayed for over a year.

                    On October 9,  1988, the Unions ended their  strike and

          made an unconditional offer  to return to work.   Between October

          18  and October 26, 1988,  the Unions and  the Company negotiated

          and  executed an  agreement  setting forth  terms and  procedures

          under  which former  strikers  would be  recalled as  replacement

          workers  left  and  their  positions became  available.    During

          negotiations,  the Unions raised  the issue of  the 151 Employees

          who had been laid off in October 1987 and whose recall rights had

          technically expired.   The final recall  agreement provided, with

          limited  exceptions, that  the 151  laid  off Employees  would be

          among the employees recalled under the agreement.

                    In April 1989, at the Unions' request, portions of  the

          recall agreement  were renegotiated and amended  to include lists

          setting forth the order  in which employees were to  be recalled.

          The 151 laid  off Employees were included  on these lists.   Both

          the October 1988 agreement and  the April 1989 amended  agreement

          were  silent   as  to   its  duration   or   termination.     The

          decertification petition was pending throughout the negotiations.

                                         -3-

                    In  July 1989,  the  NLRB  conducted a  decertification

          election at the  Mill.   Of the employees  eligible to vote,  616

          voted  for  decertification,  and   361  voted  against.    After

          investigating  and holding a hearing  on the Unions' challenge to

          the election, the NLRB issued  a decision upholding the  election

          results and dismissing the  Unions' objections.  The Unions  thus

          became  decertified  as  of   March  30,  1993.     Both  parties

          acknowledge   that   upon   decertification,  the   then-existing

          collective bargaining agreement, which  would otherwise have been

          effective until September 30, 1993, became null and void.

                    In  August 1993,  the  Company advised  the Unions  and

          several of  the 151 laid  off Employees that  as a result  of the

          Unions' decertification,  the  Employees  no  longer  had  recall

          rights.  The Unions thereafter  filed this  action in  the United

          States District  Court for the District of Maine, contending that

          the recall agreement, unlike the collective bargaining agreement,

          survived the Unions' decertification and thus remained binding on

          the Company.

                    Following  cross-motions  for  summary   judgment,  the

          district  court issued  its decision  on December  1, 1994.   The

          district court found that  there was no indication in  the recall

          agreement  itself  that  the   parties  intended  it  to  survive

          decertification,  despite  the  fact  that   the  decertification

          petition had been filed and was pending during the negotiation of

          the  agreement.   The  court  explained that  because  the recall

          agreement  establishes  rights  for  a  category  of  represented

                                         -4-

          employees, and explicitly specifies that its terms are to prevail

          if  there is  any conflict  with "other  provisions of  the labor

          agreement,"  the  recall  agreement  is  "tied  directly  to  the

          collective  bargaining  agreement,"  such  that  it  contemplates

          "ongoing union involvement."   Because the recall agreement would

          affect  the Company's  negotiations with  a new union  seeking to

          represent  a  majority  of  employees, and  would  "perpetuate  a

          limited  portion   of  the  elements  ordinarily   covered  by  a

          collective bargaining agreement," the  recall agreement cannot be

          said to  be independent  of the collective  bargaining agreement.

          Therefore,  the  court reasoned,  the  recall  agreement did  not

          survive decertification.  Accordingly, the court granted  summary

          judgment in the Company's favor.

                                      DISCUSSION
                                      DISCUSSION

                    A.  Standards of Review
                    A.  Standards of Review
                        ___________________

                    In  general,  summary judgment  is  proper  only if  no

          genuine  issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled

          to  judgment  as  a matter  of  law.    Fed.  R. Civ.  P.  56(c).

          Therefore,  a   party  seeking  summary  judgment   must  make  a

          preliminary  showing  that  no  genuine issue  of  material  fact

          exists.  Once  this showing is made, the non-movant must point to

          specific facts  demonstrating that there is  a trialworthy issue.

          National Amusements, Inc.  v. Town  of Dedham, 43  F.3d 731,  735
          _________________________     _______________

          (1st  Cir.  1995).   An  issue  is  "genuine"  when the  evidence

          relevant to it, viewed in  the light most flattering to the  non-

          moving party,  is "sufficiently  open-ended to permit  a rational

                                         -5-

          factfinder to resolve the  issue in favor  of either side."   Id.
                                                                        __

          (citation  omitted).    Because  the  summary  judgment  standard

          requires the  trial court to  make a  legal determination  rather

          than  to  engage in  factfinding,  appellate  review is  plenary.

          Equal  Employment Opportunity  Comm'n  v. Steamship  Clerks Union
          _____________________________________     _______________________

          1066, 48 F.3d 594, 602 (1st Cir. 1995).
          ____

                    This standard is the norm.   Having stated it, however,

          we must  note  that under  our  precedent, in  certain,  somewhat

          unusual cases, this standard does not apply.  In a  nonjury case,

          when the  basic dispute  between  the parties  concerns only  the

          factual  inferences that one might draw from the more basic facts

          to which the  parties have  agreed, and where  neither party  has

          sought  to  introduce additional  factual  evidence  or asked  to

          present witnesses,  the parties are, in  effect, submitting their

          dispute  to the court as  a "case stated."   Steamship Clerks, 48
                                                       ________________

          F.3d  at 603 (citing Federaci n de Empleados del Tribunal Gen. de
                               ____________________________________________

          Justicia  v. Torres,  747 F.2d  35, 36  (1st Cir.  1984) (Breyer,
          ________     ______

          J.)).    The  district  court  is  then  "freed  from  the  usual

          constraints  that attend  the  adjudication of  summary  judgment

          motions,"  and may  engage in  a certain  amount of  factfinding,

          including the drawing of inferences.  Id.
                                                __

                    By the same  token, the appellate court may assume that

          the parties considered the  matter to have been submitted  to the

          district court as  a case ready for decision on  the merits.  Id.
                                                                        __

          The  standard for  appellate review  consequently shifts  from de
                                                                         __

          novo  review to clear-error review; that is, the district court's
          ____

                                         -6-

          factual inferences should be  set aside only if they  are clearly

          erroneous.  Id. (citing United States v. Ven-Fuel, Inc., 758 F.2d
                      __          _____________    ______________

          741, 744 n.1 (1st Cir. 1985)).

                    In  the  instant  case,  the  parties  cross-moved  for

          summary  judgment, yet both agreed that there was no dispute over

          the basic  facts of  the case.2   Nor did  either party  give any

          indication  that it  intended to  present additional  evidence or

          witnesses, or request a jury trial.  The only dispute in the case

          stems  from the inferences that  the parties claim  must be drawn

          from  those  basic facts  --  what legal  significance  should be

          ascribed  to those  facts.   In  effect,  therefore, the  parties

          submitted their case to the district court as a case stated.  See
                                                                        ___

          Steamship  Clerks,  48 F.3d  at  603 (holding  same  in virtually
          _________________

          identical procedural circumstances).  Similarly, the parties both

          state in their appeal  briefs and during oral argument  that they

          agree upon the basic material facts of the case.  Accordingly, we

          are bound to  apply the more deferential clear-error  standard of

          review when examining the inferences drawn by the district court.

          Id.  The district court's legal conclusions nevertheless engender
          __

                              
          ____________________

          2  Of course, the mere fact that the parties moved simultaneously
          for summary  judgment does not automatically  change the district
          court's analysis  or render  the customary standard  of appellate
          review obsolete.  Unless the special circumstances described here
          are present,  "the nisi  prius court  must  consider each  motion
                             ____  _____
          separately, drawing  inferences against each movant  in turn, and
          the court of appeals must  engage in de novo review."   Steamship
                                               __ ____            _________
          Clerks,  48 F.3d  at 603 n.8  (citing El  D a, Inc.  v. Hern ndez
          ______                                _____________     _________
          Col n,  963 F.2d  488, 492  n.4 (1st  Cir. 1992);  Griggs-Ryan v.
          _____                                              ___________
          Smith, 904 F.2d 112, 115 (1st Cir. 1990)).    
          _____

                                         -7-

          de novo review.  Id. (citing McCarthy v. Azure, 22  F.3d 351, 354
          __ ____          __          ________    _____

          (1st Cir. 1994)).

                    B.  The District Court's Decision
                    B.  The District Court's Decision
                        _____________________________

                    The Unions'  primary contention  on appeal is  that the

          district court erred  as a matter of law, and  that its ruling is

          contrary  to  the  Supreme  Court's  decision  in  Retail  Clerks
                                                             ______________

          Internat'l Ass'n Local 128 v. Lion Dry Goods, 369 U.S. 17 (1962).
          __________________________    ______________

          Specifically, the Unions  argue that the Lion  Dry Goods decision
                                                   _______________

          compels  the legal  conclusion that the  recall agreement  in the

          instant  case  is an  enforceable contract.    We think  that the

          Unions' argument ascribes too much to the Lion Dry Goods case and
                                                    ______________

          too little to the district court's decision here.

                    In addressing the issue of whether the recall agreement

          survived the Unions' decertification, the district court began by

          noting  that  "decertification  ends the  enforceability  of  any

          collective bargaining agreement," and observing that both parties

          concede that the  Company is  no longer obliged  to negotiate  or

          bargain with the  Unions or to honor the terms  and conditions of

          the  previous  collective bargaining  agreements.    Going on  to

          discuss the issue of  the recall agreement's continued viability,

          the court explained:

                         [The  recall agreement  was] [d]rafted
                      at  a  time when  the  Unions were  still
                      certified    as    majority    bargaining
                      representatives,  [and] it  requires that
                      the  Unions receive a  copy of any recall
                      notice  sent  to  unreinstated  strikers.
                      The  recall  contract establishes  rights
                      for   this    category   of   represented

                                         -8-

                      employees  and  affects their  seniority.
                      Indeed, it  specifies that its  terms are
                      to prevail if there  is any conflict with
                      "the  other  provisions   of  the   labor
                      agreement"  .  .  .  . Thus,  the  recall
                                             __________________
                      agreement   is   tied  directly   to  the
                      _________________________________________
                      collective  bargaining   agreement:    it
                      __________________________________
                      supersedes  or   amends  any  conflicting
                      portions  of  the  collective  bargaining
                      agreement;  it  affects seniority  rights
                      under    the     collective    bargaining
                      agreement;  and  its  notice  requirement
                      contemplates  ongoing  union involvement.
                      To say that this contract survives, then,
                      would affect any negotiations with  a new
                      union  that might  seek  to  represent  a
                      majority of International Paper employees
                      and  in the  meantime would  perpetuate a
                      limited    portion   of    the   elements
                      ordinarily   covered   by  a   collective
                      bargaining   agreement  .   .  .   .  The
                      conclusion is  therefore unavoidable that
                      this recall and  seniority contract  does
                      not survive decertification.

                         I  do  not need  to  decide  whether a
                         ______________________________________
                      company  and  a  union can  ever  make an
                      _________________________________________
                      agreement that will be  enforceable after
                      _________________________________________
                      a  decertification.   Here,  there is  no
                      _________________________________________
                      indication in the  recall agreement  that
                      _________________________________________
                      the  parties  intended   it  to   survive
                      _________________________________________
                      decertification . .  . . I  conclude that
                      _______________
                      on  the  undisputed  record   the  recall
                      agreement   became   unenforceable   upon
                      decertification of the Unions.

          (Emphasis  added)(footnotes  omitted).   In  a  footnote to  this

          discussion,  the  district  court   noted  that  Lion  Dry  Goods
                                                           ________________

          "suggests that contracts with minority unions may be enforceable,

          but the only  matter actually decided there was that jurisdiction

          existed under   301 [of the LMRA]."

                    We agree with the district court that Lion Dry Goods is
                                                          ______________

          not dispositive of the issue in the instant case.  Our reading of

          that  case indicates that  the Supreme Court  was only addressing

                                         -9-

          the narrow issue of whether a strike settlement agreement between

          a minority union and an employer constitutes a "contract" as that

          term is  employed in    301(a) of the  LMRA, 29 U.S.C.    185(a).

          Lion Dry  Goods, 369 U.S.  at 27.   Reasoning that the  language,
          _______________

          purpose,  and legislative history  of the statute  do not support

          the  exclusion of such agreements from  the purview of    301(a),

          id. at 26-28, the  Court held that claims for  alleged violations
          __

          of such agreements  are "cognizable" under   301(a).   Id. at 29-
                                                                 __

          30.3

                    The parties in the instant case disagree over the scope

          of  the Court's holding in  Lion Dry Goods;  the Company contends
                                      ______________

          that  it  is merely  a grant  of  jurisdiction, while  the Unions

          contend that it stands for the proposition that contracts between

          unions and employers remain enforceable even after  the union has

          lost its majority representative status.

                    We  need  not  resolve  this dispute,  however.    Even

          assuming arguendo that Lion Dry Goods holds, as the Unions claim,
                   ________      ______________

          that contracts between unions and employers are enforceable after

          decertification, it cannot by any stretch be said to require that

          all such contracts must be  enforced regardless of the intentions
                             ____              ____________________________

          of the parties to the contract.   Indeed, the district court  did
          ______________________________

          not  hold  that  recall  agreements  were  as  a  general  matter

          unenforceable  after decertification.    It  merely analyzed  the
                              
          ____________________

          3  In so holding, the  Court rejected arguments that the language
          of   301 contemplated only those  contracts between employers and
          unions representing a majority  of employees, explaining that the
          language and history of the statute did not support such a narrow
          construction.  Id. at 28-29.
                         __

                                         -10-

          agreement before it, and inferred from the undisputed facts  that

          the agreement  had not been intended  to survive decertification.
                                      ________

          The Lion Dry Goods case, regardless of the  scope of its holding,
              ______________

          is  therefore   inapposite,  and  the  Unions'   reliance  on  it

          misplaced.4

                    Having disposed of this argument, we are left only with

          the   Unions'  contentions   that   the   district   court   drew

          impermissible inferences  in concluding, based on  the undisputed

          factual record before  it, that  the parties did  not intend  the

          recall  agreement to  survive decertification.   As  we explained

          supra, however, we review these  inferences only for clear error.
          _____

          After  carefully examining  the  record, we  can discern  no such

          clear error on the part of the district court.

                    The Unions  challenge the district court's finding that

          the  recall  agreement  contemplated  an  "ongoing  relationship"

          between the parties and therefore could not have been intended to

                              
          ____________________

          4    Contrary to  the  Unions'  arguments, the  district  court's
          decision did  not hinge on the fact that the Unions no longer had
          majority representative status.  Rather, the court explained that
          because  it found that the  recall agreement, by  its very terms,
          was  "tied directly"  to the unenforceable  collective bargaining
          agreement,  it  had  not been  intended  to  survive the  Unions'
          decertification.  In other words, the court's decision rested not
          on the  status of the  Unions, but  upon indicia of  the parties'
          intentions in negotiating the agreement.

            We also reject the Unions' arguments that  the district court's
          concern  that  the  recall  agreement would  affect  a  successor
          union's ability to  represent Company employees is  "ill-founded"
          in light of  the Lion Dry Goods  case.  The  parties in Lion  Dry
                           ______________                         _________
          Goods  explicitly agreed  that their  contract would  have effect
          _____  _________________
          even after the Union lost its majority representative status, 369
          U.S.  at 22-23,  a crucial  fact markedly  absent in  the instant
          case.

                                         -11-

          remain in  effect after the Unions' decertification.   The Unions

          concede  that the  provisions  cited by  the  district court  are

          characterized  accurately;  the Unions  urge,  however,  that "it

          could just as equally be said" that the agreement was intended to

          survive decertification.  The Unions  offer no facts or  evidence

          in support of this argument, nor do they claim that this actually

          was  the parties'  intent.   They also  do  not indicate  how the

          district court's  inference was  unreasonable or  erroneous; they

          merely claim that the opposite conclusion could have been made in
                                                    _____

          interpreting the  agreement.  We think that  the district court's

          inferences based on the undisputed record were well-supported and

          reasonable.  We certainly cannot say that they rise to the  level

          of clear error, so  we must reject the  Unions' argument on  this

          score.

                    Similarly, we are not persuaded by the Unions' argument

          that the district court  erred in concluding that the  absence of

          an  expiration  date  in  the  agreement,  among  other  indicia,

          supported  the inference  that  it was  not  intended to  survive

          decertification.  We agree that the absence of an expiration date

          could  be  interpreted to  mean  that  the parties  intended  the
          _____

          agreement to remain in effect until all employees'  recall rights

          were exhausted, regardless of  the Unions' representative status.

          We do  not see, however, nor  do the Unions point  to, any reason

          that  the  district  court's   conclusion  to  the  contrary  was

          unreasonable.      The  decertification   petition   was  pending

          throughout  the parties'  negotiations,  and neither  party could

                                         -12-

          have accurately  predicted when it would take  place.  Certainly,

          if  the Unions had intended  for the recall  agreement to survive

          their  possible  decertification, they  could have  bargained for

          such a provision.  We think that the absence of  such a provision

          or expiration date, under these circumstances, just as reasonably

          supports the  inference that  the parties  had  not intended  the
                                                          ___

          agreement  to survive.      We therefore  find  no error  in  the

          district court's conclusion to this effect.

                                      CONCLUSION
                                      CONCLUSION

                    Finding no clear error, we affirm.
                                               ______

                                         -13-