granite/halmar Construction Co., Inc. v. Building Material Team. Loc. 282
Docket: 04 CIV. 3356(SCR)
Court: District Court, S.D. New York; December 7, 2004; Federal District Court
Granite/Halmar Construction Co. Inc. filed a lawsuit against Building Material Teamsters Local 282, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Gary La Barbera following the termination of employee Joseph Mantone for allegedly refusing to provide a second urine sample after an initial sample was deemed invalid. The case centers around a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) which outlines procedures for handling substance abuse issues, including mandatory testing and potential termination without recourse to grievance procedures if an employee refuses to participate in testing or related programs.
Mantone had previously tested positive for a controlled substance and completed a rehabilitation program in 2002. Upon being called back to work in August 2003, he provided a urine sample that did not meet the required temperature standards, leading the employer to request a second observed sample. Mantone did not provide this second sample, resulting in his termination.
The legal dispute involves cross-motions for summary judgment, focusing on whether Mantone's actions constituted a refusal to provide the sample, which the employer argues justifies termination and is a question of law for the court. Conversely, the union contends that the determination of refusal is a factual issue that should be resolved by an arbitrator. The court's standard for summary judgment requires the moving party to demonstrate the absence of genuine issues of material fact, affirming that the case hinges on the interpretation of the CBA and the circumstances surrounding Mantone's termination.
Public policy favors arbitration under federal labor law, but the Employer contends that the current grievance is not arbitrable. The Court must determine if the parties agreed to arbitrate the dispute, following precedents set in *United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior, Gulf Navigation Co.*. The Employer's position is legally sound if the only issue is whether the Employee's refusal to take a drug test constitutes termination under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Union concedes that refusal to take the test would justify automatic discharge but contests whether the Employee actually refused to provide a sample. The Court is tasked with resolving whether failing to provide a second urine sample constitutes a refusal.
The Employer references *Office of the Comm'r of Baseball v. World Umpires Ass'n*, which differentiated between disputes subject to arbitration and those excluded from grievance processes. In that case, disputes related to disciplinary actions were not arbitrable, aligning with the principles from the *Steelworkers Trilogy* that arbitration is contractual and requires clear agreement. The Court decides arbitrability, not the merits of the claims, and should only deny arbitration if it can be assured that the arbitration clause does not cover the dispute. The breadth of the arbitration clause influences this determination; a broad clause typically allows all disputes to go to arbitration, while a narrow clause necessitates careful examination of whether the specific conduct falls within its scope. In *World Umpires Ass'n*, the CBA's limitation on disciplinary disputes rendered the clause narrow. The Union argues that its discharge arbitration clause is broader and applicable to disputes related to discharge, countering the Employer's claim.
The Court focuses on Section 42(F) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), which mandates termination of an employee who refuses drug, substance, or alcohol testing without recourse to the grievance procedure. This section is interpreted narrowly and clearly, stating that a refusal is evident when an employee does not provide a second urine sample upon request. The term "refusal" is not defined in the CBA, but based on its plain meaning, the Court concludes that the Employee's failure to submit the second sample constitutes a refusal. The Union's arguments do not provide any alternative interpretation, leading the Court to uphold the Employer's position. Consequently, the Employee's termination is deemed valid under Section 42(F), and the Union's motion for summary judgment is denied while the Employer's motion is granted. The Court also stays the arbitration proceedings. The Union's request for attorney's fees is denied, as the Employer's actions were not unjustified or frivolous. The ruling is confirmed with a reference to relevant case law.
