Opinion
1:01CV00404
August 22, 2003
Memorandum Order
This matter is before the Court on the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) [Doc. # 4]. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted only if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of its claim that entitles it to relief.Edwards v. City of Goldsboro. 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999). The complaint should not be dismissed unless it is certain that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief under any legal theory that might plausibly be suggested by the facts alleged. Mylan Labs. Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). The Fourth Circuit has stated that "[u]nder the liberal rules of federal pleading, a complaint should survive a motion to dismiss if it sets out facts sufficient for the court to infer that all the required elements of the cause of action are present." Wolman v. Tose, 467 F.2d 29, 33 n. 5 (4th Cir. 1972).
The facts stated in the light most favorable to the plaintiff are as follows: The Plaintiff Teamsters Local 391 ("the Teamsters") filed this action alleging breach of a collective bargaining agreement. The Teamsters, citing the "Plant Gainsharing" portion of the agreement, assert that Ball Corporation ("Ball") violated the agreement by "refusing to payout to eligible employees the $618,331.00 remaining in the reserve fund of the Plant Gainsharing Plan." The agreement provides:
A Plant Gainsharing Plan will be designed to provide gainsharing payments of up to 5% of qualified earnings. The plans will be consistent with the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding. The gainsharing plan will . . . (6) be required to set aside a reserve of 25% of gains, which will be paid at the end of the year after accounting for any quarterly deficits.
Ball asserts that the agreement places a 5% cap on the funds to be paid to employees, the 5% has been paid, and the Teamsters have no cause of action. The Teamsters assert, however, that the agreement requires Ball to pay the full amount of the reserve to employees once any quarterly deficits have been subtracted.
Collective bargaining agreements are not interpreted under traditional rules of contract but under a federal common law of labor policy.Bowen v. USPS. 459 U.S. 212, 220 (1983). However, as with any question of contract interpretation, the first question that must be considered in interpreting a collective bargaining agreement is whether the language of the agreement constitutes a clear manifestation of the parties1 intent and whether there is any ambiguity. District 29, United Mine Workers of America v. Royal Coal Co., 768 F.2d 588, 590 (4th Cir. 1985). In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant have offered differing interpretations of the Gainsharing Plan. According to Ball, the plan is capped at 5%. According to the Teamsters, the plan requires that the entire reserve, minus any quarterly deficits, be passed to employees at the end of the year. Once evidence is available at a later stage in this proceeding, it may be found that the parties intended to limit the plan to 5%, but such a finding may not be based upon apparently inconsistent provisions of the agreement alleged in the complaint-which is all the Court need consider at the 12(b)(6) stage.
The defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. #4] is DENIED,