Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1332
FRATERNAL ORDER
COMMITTEE, INC.,
OF
POLICE
METRO
TRANSIT
POLICE
LABOR
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01387-LMB-JFA)
Argued:
Before TRAXLER,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
NIEMEYER
and
MOTZ,
Circuit
P. Keating,
Appellee.
BEINS,
AXELROD,
P.C.,
Washington,
D.C.,
for
ordered
WMATA
to
reinstate
the
two
officers.
For
the
Metrorail
and
I.
WMATA,
Metrobus
an
interstate
systems
in
agency,
Washington,
operates
D.C.,
the
Maryland,
and
Virginia
The compact
jurisdictions
on
the
Metro
system.
The
FOP
is
the
collective
bargaining
agreement
with
WMATA.
The
and
outlines
four-step
grievance
procedure
for
Spencer
and
for
for
allegedly
being
investigation.
striking
untruthful
WMATA discharged
passenger
during
the
with
his
subsequent
the
Officers,
the
Board
concluded
that
lengthy
It
had
lost
their
officers in Maryland.
certifications
to
serve
as
police
loses
his
recertification
from
certification,
the
Maryland
4
he
Police
must
Training
apply
If an
for
Commission
(Maryland Commission).
Id. 12.04.01.07(A).
Moreover, the
WMATA Compact mandates that MTPD officers shall have the same
powers . . . and shall be subject to the same limitations . . .
as
member
of
the
duly
constituted
police
force
of
the
WMATA Compact
76(b) (2009).
to
The
Officers
therefore
needed
apply
for
of
in
April
2012,
(Officer
WMATA
Spencer)
placed
the
and
May
Officers
(Officer
on
paid
As part
send
the
Maryland
Commission
various
materials,
including
led
to
the
firing
of
12.04.01.08(D)(2) (2015).
the
Officers.
Md.
Code
Regs.
no
uncertain
terms,
that
the
MTPD
did
not
favor
the first time that the MTPD has lobbied against recertification
in the wake of an arbitration decision ordering an officers
reinstatement.
request
Bentons
for
recertification
request
in
August
in
July
2012
5
and
2012;
it
denied
subsequently
Officer
denied
his
on
these
second
behalf
of
terminations,
the
Officers.
the
FOP
Officer
filed
Spencers
denied at the first step of the process, and the FOP did not
appeal it further.
not
the
continue
with
grievance
process
on
behalf
of
the
Officers.
At some point after the Maryland Commissions decisions,
the
FOP
did
raise
the
issue
of
Officer
Bentons
lack
of
Officer.
At
oral
argument
before
us,
the
FOP
Instead,
the
FOP
filed
this
action
in
federal
court
on
cross-motions
for
summary
judgment;
the
The parties
district
court
no
defect
in
the
arbitration
awards,
and
no
are
to
be
enforced
as
written.
Fraternal
Order
of
Police Metro Transit Police Labor Comm., Inc. v. WMATA, No. 121387, 2013 WL 3159839, at *10 (E.D. Va. June 20, 2013) (Summ.
J.
Op.)
(internal
Accordingly,
the
quotation
court
held
marks
that
and
citation
omitted).
WMATA
breached
both
the
Id. at *6.
The
court
subsequently
reconsideration.
denied
WMATAs
motion
for
timely appeal.
II.
WMATA
advances
several
arguments
on
appeal,
but
its
on
paid
recertification.
administrative
leave
pending
their
Instead, WMATA
We agree.
de
novo,
and
we
view
all
facts
and
reasonable
The claims brought on his behalf are not moot, however, because
the disposition of this case could affect the district courts
award of back pay.
8
inferences
therefrom
nonmoving party.
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
the
News, 674 F.3d 380, 38485 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted).
We need not
district
Officers
temporary
on
court,
paid
the
FOP
acknowledged
administrative
reinstatement.
The
leave
that
placing
constituted
question,
then,
is
at
the
least
whether
circuits,
however,
procedural
histories
terminated,
ordered
--
have
decided
i.e.,
where
reinstated
by
cases
an
an
held
termination
that
the
employee
through
an
cannot
action
with
similar
employee
has
been
arbitrator,
and
then
Two of our
challenge
seeking
the
second
enforcement
of
the
arbitration award.
In
Chrysler
Industrial
Motors
Workers,
Corp.
F.3d
v.
760
International
(7th
Cir.
Union,
1993),
the
Allied
Seventh
harassment.
Id.
at
761.
The
arbitrator,
however,
Chrysler
its
to
reinstate
investigation
of
the
the
employee.
incident,
Id.
at
however,
761-62.
Chrysler
Id. at 761.
order reinstatement.
Id.
employee for one day and then terminated him again, citing the
additional acts of sexual harassment.
In
holding
arbitration
that
award,
Chryslers
the
Id. at 762.
action
Seventh
did
not
Circuit
violate
emphasized
the
that
Id. at 763.
evidence
employer
after
against
the
the
discharge,
employee
then
discovered
by
the
employer
is
not
the
the
discharge.
discharge]
as
the
basis
for
[subsequent]
on
the
Seventh
Circuits
decision
in
Chrysler
Motors, the Third Circuit has also held that an employer can
discharge an employee, after reinstatement, based on facts not
considered by the arbitrator.
Union Local 1776 v. Excel Corp., 470 F.3d 143, 146-49 (3d Cir.
2006).
11
Id.
Id. at 144.
A day
Id.
and
the
arbitrator
overturned
the
employers
Id. at 144-45.
Id. at 145.
The employer
Id.
The
Third
Circuit
held
that
the
employers
Id. at 144.
The
on
independent
grounds,
pending
second
arbitration.
Id. 4
In
United
Food,
the
court
distinguished
United
Steelworkers, District 36, Local 8249 v. Adbill Management
Corp., 754 F.2d 138, 140 (3d Cir. 1985)), where although a hotel
purported to comply with an arbitrators award to reinstate nine
maids, it immediately placed the maids on indefinite layoffs
because of low occupancy. Adbill held that the hotels action
conflicted with the language of the arbitration award, which
clearly require[d] returning the maids to actual duty. Id. at
142. United Food distinguished Adbill on the ground that there,
the employers decision to reduce its workforce was made after
the issuance of the arbitral award, while in the case before it
the basis for the second termination occurred before the
arbitral decision.
United Food, 470 F.3d at 149 (emphasis in
(Continued)
12
Like
the
employers
in
Chrysler
Motors
and
United
Food,
second
Officers
time.
The
Maryland
request
for
Commissions
recertification
denial
created
of
the
new
and
and United Food, the basis for the second termination was never
before the arbitrators.
Board
of
Arbitration
possibility,
that
recertification.
the
Maryland
or
was
even
aware
Commission
of
would
the
deny
denial
of
recertification,
did
not
violate
the
original).
To the extent the holding in United Food rested on
this temporal distinction, we decline to adopt it. In our view,
truly independent grounds for terminating an employee can arise
before or after an arbitrator has heard the employees case.
That is, the independent grounds are genuinely outside the scope
of what was before the arbitrator.
5
Commission
by
writing
letters
reviewing
ten
years
of
strongly
discouraging
disciplinary
actions,
it
found
no
other case where the MTPD had employed the type of strong,
negative rhetoric used by Chief Taborn in his letters to the
Maryland
Commission
concerning
Benton
and
Spencer.
Recons.
the
arbitration
awards
by
creating
condition
that
it
Id.
--
to
forward
the
Maryland
Commission
any
Md.
and
considered
information
WMATA
supplied.
judgment
In
fact,
in
two
evaluating
commissioners
the
in
arbitration
prohibited
WMATAs
conduct
toward
the
Officers and then proceeds to explain why the awards are valid.
But again, no party disputes that the awards were valid when
issued.
15
At
best,
the
FOP
has
provided
reasons
for
questioning
Although we hold
for
resolving
any
labor
dispute,
including
the
WMATA Compact
bargaining
agreement
falls
squarely
within
this
provision.
Accordingly,
the
Officers
grievances
belong
before
the
III.
Our conclusion that WMATA did not violate the arbitration
awards does not mean we necessarily embrace WMATAs behavior.
Like the district court, we are troubled by evidence that WMATA
handled
these
cases
in
markedly
different
fashion
from
difference.
actions
agreement.
provides
by
WMATA
breached
the
collective
bargaining
the
only
proper
forum
for
resolving
the
Officers
claims.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district
court is
REVERSED.
17