Teamsters Local 315 v. Union Oil Company of California

Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Teamsters Local 315 (Union) compelling Unocal to arbitrate a dispute concerning the medical fitness of an employee who was not allowed to return to work. We reverse.

FACTS

Unocal and the Union are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement that provides for arbitration of grievances. This agreement contains strict limitations on the scope of arbitrable disputes. The Union seeks to compel arbitration of a dispute arising out of Unocal’s refusal to return an employee, Norman Simon, to work after a medical leave. Simon suffered an industrial injury and was unable to return to work. He received sick-pay allowance in accordance with the collective-bargaining agreement until May 1986 when all available benefits credited to him were used.

Simon’s physician cleared him to return to work. Upon review of the employee’s job responsibilities, however, Unocal’s physician determined that Simon was not medically qualified to perform his job. Pursuant to its physician’s recommendation, Unocal refused to allow Simon to return to work. Nonetheless, he remained employed by Unocal, albeit…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent. Norman Simon, a member of Teamsters Local 315, suffered an industrial injury that prevented him from working. After a period of recuperation, Simon was cleared to return to work by his physician. But Union Oil’s physician decided that Simon was not medically capable of performing his old job. Accordingly, Union Oil refused to reemploy Simon. However, Union Oil kept Simon on as an inactive employee — without pay — by allowing him to continue accruing seniority under Article III of the collective bargaining agreement.

Because Union Oil used the seniority status tactic to keep Simon “employed,” Local 315’s dispute involves more than a medical decision regarding Simon’s ability to perform his old job. The dispute also involves the interpretation of the seniority provision of the collective agreement. Local 315 asserts

Brief for Appellee at 14-15.

Article IX, § D of the collective agreement provides a procedure “[t]o arbitrate a grievance which raises a bona fide question concerning the interpretation or application of any express provision of [the] Agreement.” (Emphasis added.) A bona fide question raised by Local 315 is whether a medically fit…

856 F.2d 1307 129 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2249 , 109 Lab.Cas. P 10,694 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 315, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellant. No. 87-2449. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 11, 1988. Decided Sept. 2, 1988. Randolph C. Roeder and Karen L. Mathes, Littler, Mendelson, Fastiff & Tichy, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Kenneth C. Absalom and Kenneth N. Silbert, Beeson, Tayer, Sibert & Bodine, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before PREGERSON, BOOCHEVER and BEEZER, Circuit Judges. BEEZER, Circuit Judge: 1 Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Teamsters Local 315 (Union) compelling Unocal to arbitrate a dispute concerning the medical fitness of an employee who was not allowed to return to work. We reverse. FACTS 2 Unocal and the Union are parties to a collective-bargaining agreement that provides for arbitration of grievances. This agreement contains strict limitations on the scope of arbitrable disputes. The Union seeks to compel…