United States District Court, D. Nevada
before the court is defendant Teamsters Local 631's
(“Teamsters”) motion for judgment on the
pleadings. (ECF No. 15). Plaintiff Vectrus Systems Corp.
(“Vectrus”) filed a response (ECF No. 18), to
which Teamsters replied (ECF No. 20).
before the court is Vectrus' motion for summary judgment.
(ECF No. 19). Teamsters filed a response (ECF No. 21), to
which Vectrus replied (ECF No. 22).
initiated this action seeking to vacate Arbitrator Barry
Winograd's April 27, 2018, opinion and award in an
arbitration between Vectrus and Teamsters. (ECF No. 1).
is a labor organization that represents employees providing
base operations services at Creech Air Force Base and the
Nevada Test and Training Range, both of which are located
North of Las Vegas. (ECF Nos. 1, 8). On October 1, 2013, the
prime government contractor for employees involved in base
operations, PAE, entered into a collective bargaining
agreement (“CBA”) with Teamsters. (ECF Nos. 1,
1-2, 8). The contract provided that the CBA would expire on
September 30, 2017. Id.
summer of 2017, URS Federal Services, Inc.
(“URS”) discovered that it would replace PAE on
October 25, 2017. (ECF Nos. 1, 8). URS retained Vectrus to
provide employment services in furtherance of base
operations. Id. At roughly the same time, PAE and
its subcontractors executed an agreement with Teamsters
extending the CBA until September 30, 2018. Id.
September 26, 2017, URS and Vectrus executed a bridge
agreement with Teamsters providing that URS and Vectrus
“agree to accept all the terms and conditions of the
collective bargaining agreement (CBA)[.]” (ECF No.
1-3). The bridge agreement further provides that the contract
“will become effective October 25, 2017.”
Id. The bridge agreement does not contain
arbitration or dispute resolution provisions. Id.
same day that URS and Vectrus entered into the bridge
agreement, Vectrus extended offers of employment to some but
not all the employees of C. Martin-the subcontractor that
Vectrus replaced. (ECF Nos. 1-1, 8, 10). On October 13, 2017,
Teamsters filed a grievance alleging that Vectrus breached
the CBA by failing to terminate C. Martin's employees
based on seniority or just cause. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 8).
February 13, 2018, Vectrus and Teamsters held an arbitration
hearing at which Vectrus objected to Arbitrator
Winograd's authority to arbitrate Teamsters'
grievance regarding Vectrus' hiring practices prior to
October 25, 2017. (ECF No. 8). On April 27, 2018, the
arbitrator held that it had authority to arbitrate the
grievance because the CBA was of a continuing nature and the
bridge agreement bound Vectrus to the terms of the CBA,
including all hiring practices in anticipation of the October
25, 2017, takeover. Id. The arbitrator also held
that Vectrus violated article 28, section 3 of the CBA by not
reducing the workforce based on seniority or just cause and
ordered Vectrus to reinstate employees in seniority order.
23, 2018, Vectrus filed a complaint petitioning to vacate the
arbitration award. (ECF No. 1). Now, Teamsters moves for
judgment on the pleadings and Vectrus moves for summary
judgment. (ECF Nos. 15, 19).
Judgment on the pleadings
the pleadings are closed-but early enough not to delay
trial-a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). Motions for judgment on the pleadings
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) are
“functionally identical” to motions to dismiss
for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Rule 12(c), the court “must accept all factual
allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the
light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
Fleming v. Pickard,581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir.
2009). “[J]udgment on the pleadings is proper
‘when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving
party's pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.'” Ventress v.
Japan Airlines,486 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2007)
(citation omitted). The allegations of the nonmoving party
must be accepted as true while any ...