McCoy v. Hess Oil of the Virgin Islands Corp.

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-23-2003
McCoy v. Hess Oil VI Corp
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 02-2838
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"McCoy v. Hess Oil VI Corp" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 445.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/445
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-2838
CALVIN K. R. MCCOY,
Appellant
v.
HESS OIL OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS CORPORATION; UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AM ERICA, AFL-CIO-CLC, DISTRICT 35
On Appeal From the United States District Court for the Virgin Islands
(Civil No. 95-cv-00132)
District Court Judge: Hon. Thomas K. Moore
Argued:
April 29, 2003
Before: Roth, McKee, Circuit Judges, and Cowen, Senior Circuit Judge
(Opinion filed June 20, 2003)
Ronald E. Russell (Argued)
116 Queen Cross Street
Frederiksted, St. Croix
USVI 00851
Counsel for Appellant
Linda J. Blair (Argued)
C. Beth Moss
Bryant, Barnes & Moss
1134 King Street, 2 nd Floor
Christiansted, St. Croix
USVI 00820
Counsel for Appellee Hess Oil of the Virgin Islands Corporation
Glenn M. Connor (Argued)
Whatley Drake
P.O. Box 10647
Birmingham, AL 35202
Daniel M. Kovalik
David I. Goldman
Suite 807
United Steelworkers of America
5 Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Counsel for Appellee United Steelworkers of America
OPINION OF THE COURT
McKee, Circuit Judge.
Calvin McCoy appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in
favor of Hess Oil of the Virgin Islands Corporation (“HOVIC”) and the United
Steelworkers of America, District 35 (“Union”). M cCoy asserts that HOVIC improperly
terminated his employment in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. He also
alleges that the Union breached its duty of fair representation during the arbitration
process.
McCoy’s claims rely upon the framework enunciated by DelCostello v.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983). Under that framework, a
plaintiff/employee can not recover on a hybrid §301/fair representation claim unless
he/she can first prove both that the employer breached the collective bargaining
2
1
agreement and that the union breached its duty to fairly represent the employee.
DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 164-65. We review the district court’s grant of summary
judgment de novo. Huang v BP Amoco Corp, 271 F3d 560, 564 (3d Cir. 2001). For the
reasons that follow, we will affirm the decision of the district court.
I.
Inasmuch as the district court has already set forth the factual and procedural
history of this case, we find it unnecessary to repeat that history here. See McCoy v. Hess
Oil of the Virgin Islands Corp., 206 F.Supp.2d 726 (D. V.I. 2002). Based upon our
review of this record, and arguments of counsel, we conclude that the district court
correctly applied the principles of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and the teachings of DelCostello in
granting summary judgment against McCoy and in favor of HOVIC and the Union.
Moreover, the district court, in its Memorandum Opinion and Order, has carefully and
completely explained it reasons for granting summary judgment to the defendants, and we
can add little to that court’s thoughtful analysis. Therefore we will affirm the decision of
the district court substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s Memorandum
Opinion without further elaboration.
1
Section 301 refers to §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §185.
The suit against the employer rests on §301, because the employee is alleging a breach of
the collective bargaining agreement. DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 164. The suit against the
union is for breach of the union’s duty of fair representation, which is implicit in the
National Labor Relations Act. Id.3
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Please file the foregoing Opinion
/s/ Theodore A. McKee
Circuit Judge
4
5