United Natural Foods Inc v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 117

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:19-cv-01736
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 UNITED NATURAL FOODS, 9 INCORPORATED,

10 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:19-cv-01736-RAJ

11 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY STAY PENDING 12 RESOLUTION OF NLRB CHARGE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF 13 TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 117 & LOCAL 313, 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Stay 17 Pending Resolution of NLRB Charge. Dkt. # 24. On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff United 18 Natural Foods, Incorporated (“UNFI”) filed an action in this Court against Defendant 19 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 117 and Local 313 (collectively, the 20 “Unions”) to vacate an arbitration award (“Award”) granted to the Unions weeks earlier. 21 Dkt. # 1. That same day, UNFI also filed an unfair labor practice charge with the 22 National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), alleging that the Award violates the National 23 Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Dkt. # 8. The Unions denied the allegations and 24 counterclaimed under the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), seeking to 25 confirm and enforce the Award and obtain relief from UNFI’s alleged breach of certain 26 collective bargaining agreements. Dkt. # 28 at 2. On January 24, 2020, UNFI filed the 27 instant motion. Dkt. # 24. 1 Based on a review of the record, the Court DENIES the motion. 2 II. BACKGROUND 3 In October 2018, UNFI, a national wholesale grocery distribution company, 4 acquired SuperValu, Inc. and became party to collective bargaining agreements 5 (“CBAs”) with Local 313 and Local 117, which represent employees in UNFI’s facility 6 in Tacoma, Washington. Dkt. # 1 at 4. In February 2019, UNFI announced that it would 7 consolidate its Tacoma, Washington, and Portland, Oregon, facilities and replace them 8 with a new distribution center in Centralia, Washington. The Tacoma and Portland 9 facilities1 would be closed with the opening of the Centralia facility, which would 10 employ approximately 500 workers, according to UNFI. Dkt. # 1-1 at 5. 11 In March 2019, the Unions filed grievances against UNFI claiming that it violated 12 the CBAs by failing to apply a movement-of-facility provision. Id. at 4, 6. According to 13 the Unions, under Section 1.01.2, “Movement of Existing Facility,” of the CBAs, the 14 Tacoma facility employees should “be afforded the opportunity to work at the new 15 facility under the same terms and conditions and without any loss of seniority or other 16 contractual rights or benefits” following the move of a facility. Id. at 8. UNFI responded 17 that this provision does not apply to the move to Centralia, and the parties agreed to 18 arbitrate the dispute. Dkt. # 1 at 6. 19 At arbitration, the Unions focused on terms of the contract, specifically contractual 20 rights granted to employees under Section 1.01.2. Dkt # 1-1 at 10. In response, UNFI 21 offered a different interpretation of the contract, maintaining that Section 1.01.2 only 22 applied to “the relocation of a single facility, not the consolidation of two or more 23 facilities.” Id. at 14. UNFI also contended that this case is “a representation case subject 24 to NLRB jurisdiction disguised as a grievance.” Id. at 10. 25 The arbitrator, acting under the terms of the CBAs, limited the scope of the 26 1 The employees at the Portland facility are represented by different unions and are not 27 parties in this matter. Dkt. # 1. 1 arbitration to contract interpretation and declined to address UNFI’s argument that this 2 was a representation case “disguised as a grievance.” Dkt # 1-1 at 11. The Unions, he 3 reasoned, did not demand recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of any 4 employees at the Centralia facility. In the end, he concluded that Section 1.01.2 applied 5 to the Tacoma facility employees and that UNFI violated the CBAs when it denied them 6 the opportunity to work at the Centralia facility under the same terms and conditions 7 without any loss of seniority or other contractual rights or benefits. Id. at 19. 8 UNFI then filed an action in this Court to vacate the Award. Dkt. # 24. UNFI 9 also filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, claiming that the Unions were 10 violating the NLRA by (1) coercing employees at the Centralia facility to be represented 11 by the Unions; (2) attempting to cause UNFI to discriminate against employees in 12 Centralia; and (3) seeking to bargain with UNFI when a majority of employees at 13 Centralia have not designated these unions to represent them. Id. at 11. Later, UNFI 14 moved to stay this Court’s proceedings pending resolution of the NLRB charge. 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 This Court derives authority to hear “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an 17 employer and a labor organization representing employees” from Section 301 of the 18 Labor Management Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The NLRB has “primary 19 jurisdiction . . . only [in] cases involving representational issues.” Cent. Valley 20 Typographical Union No. 46 v. McClatchy Newspapers, 762 F.2d 741, 747 (9th Cir. 21 1985), abrogated on other grounds. The NLRB “has no jurisdiction to consider cases 22 arising from the breach of a current collective bargaining agreement.” La Mirada 23 Trucking, Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union 166, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, 24 Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 538 F.2d 286, 288 (9th Cir. 1976). “When a labor 25 dispute involves both a breach of contract and an unfair labor practice charge, the NLRB 26 and the courts have concurrent jurisdiction.” Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n, Local No. 27 162 v. Jason Mfg., Inc., 900 F.2d 1392, 1400 (9th Cir. 1990). 1 The Ninth Circuit has held that “federal courts must tread lightly in areas of the 2 NLRB’s primary jurisdiction and must defer to the NLRB when, on close examination, 3 section 301 cases fall within the NLRB’s primary jurisdiction.” Serv. Employees Int’l 4 Union v. St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 344 F.3d 977, 983 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations and 5 citation omitted). Indeed, a stay “often will be required” when a “contractual 6 interpretation issue is closely related to an unfair labor practice charge . . . already 7 presented to the NLRB.” 762 F.2d at 747. That is not the case here. 8 Whether Section 1.01.2 applies under the current circumstances is a contractual 9 matter over which the Court has primary jurisdiction. Further, as noted by the Unions 10 (Dkt. # 31), the Court may determine the contractual rights of covered Tacoma facility 11 employees without treading on the NLRB’s resolution of representational issues at the 12 Centralia facility. Indeed, the Unions have made no attempt to represent any employees 13 at the Centralia facility. The Unions have argued only that a term within CBAs—to 14 which UNFI and the Tacoma facility employees are parties—provides an explicit 15 extension of contractual rights to covered Tacoma facility employees who move to 16 another location. Thus, the NLRB’s resolution of the representational issues of Centralia 17 employees will not be preclusive of this Court’s decision with respect to the contractual 18 rights of the Tacoma employees. 19 Beyond questions of primary jurisdiction and issue preclusion, the Court must 20 consider the equities of granting a stay. See McClatchy, 762 F.2d at 748. While UNFI 21 has extended “unconditional” offers of employment at the Centralia facility to all Tacoma 22 employees potentially covered by the Award, Dkt. # 24 at 4, these offers include lower 23 wages and fewer benefits than the employees had previously received, pending resolution 24 of this matter. As noted by the Unions, resolution here is “critical” to the covered 25 employees in deciding whether to accept a lower paying job with UNFI or seek 26 employment elsewhere. Dkt. # 31 at 12. On the other hand, UNFI has not alleged any 27 hardship it might suffer if this litigation (the one it commenced) continues. 1 In sum, this Court finds that a stay of proceedings is neither necessary nor 2 appropriate. 3 IV. CONCLUSION 4 For the above reasons, Plaintiff UNFI’s motion is DENIED. Dkt. # 24.

5 DATED this 21st day of July, 2020. 6 A 7 8 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27