United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
For Teamsters Local 673, Plaintiff: Marc M. Pekay, LEAD ATTORNEY, Marc M. Pekay, P.C., Chicago, IL.
For Oberweis Dairy, Inc., Defendant: Edward Nathan Druck, LEAD ATTORNEY, Mark S. Wilkinson, Franczek Radelet P.C., Chicago, IL; Anthony J. Crement, Westchester, IL.
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber, United States District Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
Plaintiff Teamsters Local 673 (hereinafter, the " Plaintiff" or " Teamsters" ), is a labor union headquartered in West Chicago, Illinois. Defendant Oberweis, Dairy, Inc. (hereinafter, the " Defendant" or " Oberweis" ) is a family-owned dairy company that produces and sells traditional dairy products such as milk, cheese, ice cream, and yogurt. Teamsters represents a bargaining unit for a portion of Oberweis' employees. Together, the parties' have entered into successive collective bargaining agreements (the " CBA's" ) since 1991. The most recent CBA became effective on April 19, 2009 (the " 2009 CBA" ). This case involves a dispute regarding the interpretation of the grievance procedures set forth in the 2009 CBA.
Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Article 4 of the 2009 CBA requires Oberweis to arbitrate grievances involving any violations of the CBA. Oberweis disagrees. It claims the 2009 CBA only requires arbitration of claims concerning disciplinary actions and discharge proceedings.
The specific grievance at issue here arose on November 22, 2011, when Teamsters alleged Oberweis violated the CBA by granting employees seniority for the time they were in managerial positions. When Oberweis refused to proceed with the arbitration, Teamsters filed this action seeking to compel arbitration. Currently before the Court are the parties' Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party " shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute is " genuine" if the evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find for the non-moving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is material if it could affect the outcome of the case. Id. If the moving party satisfies its burden, the non-movant must present facts to show a genuine dispute exists to avoid summary judgment. See, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). To establish a genuine issue of fact, the non-moving party " must do more than show that there is some metaphysical doubt as the material facts." Sarver v. Experian Info. Sys., 390 F.3d 969, 970 (7th Cir. 2004).
Both parties have moved for summary judgment. Plaintiff argues its motion should be granted because the plain language of Article 4 of 2009 CBA provides that claims concerning any violations of the CBA are subject to arbitration. Oberweis claims it is entitled to summary judgment because the language in Article 4 contains a scrivener's error which is the
result of a mutual mistake between the parties. Oberweis asks the Court to reform the 2009 CBA to correct the mistake.
Prior to addressing the merits of the motions, the Court turns to the preliminary arguments Oberweis raises in response to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion. Oberweis first argues that the case should be dismissed because Teamsters failed to file its Complaint within the relevant statute of limitations. It then argues Teamsters failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1 and this failure requires the Court to ...