United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BISSOON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are cross Motions for Summary Judgment filed
by Plaintiff Cenveo Corporation (Doc. 32)
and Defendants United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service Workers
International Union (“USW”) and United
Steelworkers, 198-G (“Local”) (herein
collectively “Defendants” or the
“Union”) (Doc. 30). For the
following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. 32) will be DENIED and
Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
30) will be GRANTED.
Cenveo Corporation (“Cenveo” or
“Plaintiff”) is a Pennsylvania corporation that
maintains a plant engaged in the production of envelopes,
custom labels and commercial printing. Am. Compl. (Doc. 23).
At all times material to this case, Cenveo and the Union have
been parties to a collective bargaining agreement
(“CBO”). Id. at ¶ 6. Plaintiff
alleges that Dontay Stokes (“Stokes”) threatened
to physically harm a supervisor and that, pursuant to a Last
Chance Agreement (“LCA”), a subsequent grievance
filed by the Union challenging Stokes's termination
(“Grievance”) is not arbitrable. Id. at
parties have provided a joint statement of undisputed
material facts (“Joint Statement”), which
includes the following facts. Dontay Stokes is a former
employee of Cenveo and was a bargaining unit employee under
the terms of the CBA. Joint Statement (Doc. 29) at ¶ 7.
On December 23, 2015, Cenveo terminated Stokes for allegedly
violating Cenveo's Workplace Violence Policy
(“Policy”). Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. The
Union grieved that termination. Id. at ¶ 10. On
March 16, 2016, Cenveo and the Union entered into the LCA.
Id. at ¶ 11. The LCA provides:
I, Dontay Stokes, by affixing my seal and/or signature,
acknowledge, in the presence of and witnessed by Cenveo
management and USW Local 198G representation, that I have
been issued disciplinary actions in accordance with
progressive discipline guidelines as provided for in Cenveo
Mt. Pleasant, PA Plant Rules. Additionally, I confirm that, I
am subject to the last and final step of the progressive
disciplinary process, which terminates my employment.
I am in complete agreement and understanding that this
agreement permits me to continue as an active employee, on a
non-precedent setting basis, at the Cenveo Mount Pleasant
Facility, with the stipulation if I have a violation of
Cenveo Workplace Violence Policy, in the next six (6) month
period, that generates a warning, it will result in immediate
termination. Further, I consent to waive all bargaining unit
agreement rights to the grievance process regarding such
termination and agree to hold harmless, Cenveo management,
USW Local 198G and its officers or representatives for such
actions with respect to such termination.
My signature to this agreement serves as verification that
this agreement has been explained to me and that I fully
understand and agree to the terms and conditions set forth in
being reinstated, Stokes reaffirmed his commitment to
Cenveo's Workplace Violence Policy by again signing for a
copy on March 25, 2016. Id. at ¶ 12. Cenveo
alleges that Stokes violated the Policy by threatening to
physically harm a supervisor, and on April 25, 2016, Cenveo
terminated Stokes for this alleged violation. Id. at
¶ 13. The Union contends that Stokes did not make the
alleged threat. Id. at ¶ 14.
4, 2016, the Union filed the Grievance challenging
Stokes's termination. Id. at ¶ 15. Cenveo
denied the Grievance, and maintains that the Grievance is not
arbitrable under the terms of the LCA. Id. at ¶
16. The Union maintains that the Grievance is arbitrable.
Id. at ¶ 17. On October 26, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a two-count amended complaint in this Court, seeking a
Declaratory Judgment (Count I) and Injunction (Count II).
Id. at ¶ 1.
filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment on December 14,
2016. Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. 32). Defendants filed
their Motion for Summary Judgment on December 14, 2016.
Def.'s Mot. for Summ. J. (Doc. 30). Defendants allege
that the grievance challenging Stokes's second
termination is arbitrable and contend that arbitration should
be compelled. Id.