Teamsters Local 391 v. Ball Corporation , 160 F. App'x 287 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-1155
    TEAMSTERS LOCAL NO. 391, Affiliated with The
    International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    BALL CORPORATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
    Chief District Judge. (CA-01-404-1)
    Argued:   December 1, 2005              Decided:     December 21, 2005
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    ARGUED: Seth R. Cohen, SMITH, JAMES, ROWLETT & COHEN, L.L.P.,
    Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. James Marion Powell,
    WOMBLE, CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North
    Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: D. Ross Hamilton, Jr., WOMBLE,
    CARLYLE, SANDRIDGE & RICE, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Teamsters Local 391 appeals the award of summary judgment
    granted   in   the   Middle    District    of    North     Carolina   to   Ball
    Corporation on Local 391’s breach of contract claim.                  Teamsters
    Local 391 v. Ball Corp., 
    355 F. Supp. 2d 803
     (M.D.N.C. 2005).
    Local 391 instituted the present action under section 301 of the
    Labor Management Relations Act, 
    29 U.S.C. § 185
    . By its complaint,
    Local 391 contends that Ball breached the parties’ 2000 collective
    bargaining agreement (the “CBA”) by failing to pay the balance of
    a “reserve fund” to Local 391’s members, workers at Ball’s plant in
    Reidsville, North Carolina.        The reserve fund had been established
    by the CBA to facilitate a “gainsharing plan” at the Reidsville
    plant.*
    In substance, the gainsharing plan allows production and
    maintenance workers to receive an annual bonus of up to, but not
    exceeding, five percent of their qualified earnings if the plant
    makes “gains,” such as process improvements and increases in
    productivity.    A self-funding provision in the plan requires all
    gainsharing    payments   in   a   plan   year   to   be    made   from    funds
    attributable to that year’s gains.         Accordingly, whether workers
    *
    The gainsharing plan has been in place at the Reidsville
    plant since 1995, and was originally negotiated by Ball’s
    predecessor, Reynolds Metal Company.      As relevant here, the
    gainsharing plan has been adopted verbatim in subsequent CBAs.
    Ball acquired Reynolds’s interest in the Reidsville plant in 1998,
    and by referring to “Ball” we refer also to Reynolds.
    2
    receive all or any of the potential five-percent annual bonus
    depends upon whether, and to what extent, the plant realizes gains
    in a given plan year.
    Although gains and losses are measured over an entire plan
    year, the plan provides for quarterly gainsharing payments.             Such
    payments create a risk of overpayment in a year with positive gains
    in the early quarters and negative gains in the later quarters,
    potentially jeopardizing the self-funding requirement. In order to
    protect against such an overpayment risk, the plan calls for the
    creation of a reserve fund, into which a portion of the funds
    attributed to each quarter’s gains are paid.            In the event gains
    are negative in later quarters, the reserve fund can be used to
    reimburse Ball for gainsharing payments it has already made.
    Similarly, if employees are owed more gainsharing payments at the
    end of a plan year, the reserve fund can be used to satisfy their
    entitlements.
    A provision in a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) —
    incorporated into the gainsharing plan, which, in turn, is part of
    the CBA — requires that the balance of the reserve fund “be paid
    at   the   end   of   the   year   after   accounting   for   any   quarterly
    deficits.” Relying upon that provision of the MOU, Local 391 seeks
    to recover for its members the balance of the reserve fund from
    plan year 2000.       In so doing, Local 391 admits that its members
    received gainsharing payments for the 2000 plan year in an amount
    3
    equal to five percent of their qualified earnings, just as they had
    in all prior plan years in which the total gains justified such
    gainsharing payments.    Nonetheless, Local 391 maintains that its
    members are further entitled to receive the reserve fund balance
    because the MOU requires that such balances “be paid at the end of
    the year.”
    The district court found that the provision of the MOU relied
    upon by Local 391 is facially ambiguous in that its text does not
    readily disclose to whom the reserve balance should be paid at the
    end of a plan year.    Teamsters Local 391, 
    355 F. Supp. 2d at 809
    .
    After considering extrinsic evidence, however, the court determined
    that “no reasonable juror could find that the parties intended
    anything other than” that the five-percent cap would apply to the
    reserve fund and to the provision of the MOU relied upon by Local
    391.   
    Id. at 813
    .   The court therefore concluded that, read in the
    context of the parties’ prior dealings on the gainsharing plan
    (since 1995), the CBA unequivocally required that any balance in
    the reserve fund at the end of a plan year be paid to Ball.     See
    
    id.
        Accordingly, the court granted Ball’s motion for summary
    judgment.    
    Id.
    Upon careful consideration of the record and the parties’
    briefs and oral argument, we are unable to identify any error in
    the district court’s well-reasoned decision.     We are accordingly
    content to affirm on the basis of the district court’s opinion.
    4
    See Teamsters Local 391 v. Ball Corp., 
    355 F. Supp. 2d 803
    (M.D.N.C. 2005).
    AFFIRMED
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-1155

Citation Numbers: 160 F. App'x 287

Judges: Motz, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/21/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024