ORDER RE: MOTIONS FOR
(Docs. 13-16 and 17-17-6)
Plaintiff National Emergency Medical Services Association and defendant American Medical Response West have filed competing motions for summary judgment. For reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's motion shall be granted; Defendant's motion shall be denied.
II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On January 14, 2011, plaintiff National Emergency Medical Services Association ("Plaintiff" or "NEMSA") filed its complaint under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185, to compel arbitration against defendant American Medical Response West ("Defendant" or "AMR"). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged as follows:
"7. Defendant provides emergency and non-emergency ambulance and medical transportation services throughout Northern California including Stanislaus County. Defendant provides these services pursuant to contracts with various public and private entities. [¶] 8. NEMSA is, and at all times material hereto was, the certified exclusive representative for a bargaining unit of approximately 2800 employees working for AMR in Northern California and Stanislaus County. The bargaining unit is referred to as the 'Northern California bargaining unit' and consists of the following employees . . . . [¶] 9. At all times material hereto, AMR has operated two facilities in Stanislaus County, California. Defendant has operated a facility located at 4846 Stratos Way, Modesto, California 95356 (the 'Modesto facility'). Employees in the classifications identified in paragraph 8, supra, and who are assigned to, work in and/or deploy from the Modesto facility are part of the Northern California bargaining unit represented by NEMSA. Defendant has also operated a second Stanislaus County facility in Turlock, California ('the Turlock facility'). Employees assigned to AMR's Turlock facility are excluded from the Northern California Bargaining unit and are not represented by NEMSA."
Plaintiff further alleged:
"10. AMR and NEMSA are parties to a written collective bargaining agreement covering the Northern California bargaining unit ('the CBA'). The CBA commenced on July 1, 2008 and will expire on June 30, 2011. Section 1.1 of the CBA specifically identifies NEMSA as the exclusive bargaining representative for the Northern California bargaining unit, and describes the bargaining unit and work jurisdiction of the bargaining unit represented by NEMSA . . . . The Northern California bargaining unit specifically includes EMTs and Paramedic employees working in Stanislaus County, except for EMTs and Paramedics working in Turlock. [¶] 11. Approximately 40 employees are assigned to the Turlock facility and are represented by the Turlock Emergency Medical Services Association ("TEMSA"). At all times relevant hereto, AMR has recognized TEMSA as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees in the Turlock facility as follows: [¶] ['][A]ll employees in the following NLRB certified bargaining unit: - All full-time and regular part-time paramedics and emergency medical technicians employed by the Employer at its Turlock, California facility; Excluding: All other employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.[']"
Plaintiff further alleged:
"14. In approximately January 2010, AMR advised NEMSA that it would close its Turlock facility and relocate all Turlock facility employees to AMR's Modesto facility. AMR stated that it would then deploy all Stanislaus County ambulances from the Modesto facility, would combine its posting plan for Stanislaus County and would otherwise treat all of Stanislaus County as one geographic area to be served by the newly expanded Modesto facility. AMR referred to these changes as a 'redeployment.' AMR proposed to implement this 'redeployment' at the beginning of May 2010. [¶] 15. AMR met with NEMSA to discuss the details of the proposed 'redeployment' on or about February 8, 2010. During that meeting, AMR provided documents explaining, in part, its reasons for proposing the 'redeployment' and outlining how and when the 'redeployment' would occur. AMR's documents specifically stated that the Turlock facility would be closed as part of the 'redeployment' and stated that all Turlock facility employees would relocate to AMR's Modesto facility. [¶] 16. NEMSA concluded that the closure of the Turlock facility and the relocation of Turlock facility employees to the Modesto facility would effectively eliminate the Turlock bargaining unit and TEMSA's continued representation of Turlock facility employees. TEMSA was only certified to represent AMR employees in Stanislaus County who work at the Turlock facility, and once that facility closed and the Turlock employees began working from the Modesto facility, the former Turlock facility employees would become part of the Northern California bargaining unit and be represented by NEMSA."
Plaintiff further alleged:
"17. . . . AMR announced in late June, 2010 that the 'redeployment' it presented at the February 8, 2010 meeting would occur on July 25, 2010. [¶] 18. On July 25, 2010, without advance notice to NEMSA, AMR implemented a new redeployment plan that was substantially and fundamentally different from the 'redeployment' plan presented at the February 8, 2010 meeting. AMR did not close the Turlock facility or reassign or relocate Turlock employees to the Modesto facility as previously represented by AMR. Instead, AMR merely combined the posting plan for all ambulances in Stanislaus County and began assigning calls for service originating in the area served exclusively by Modesto facility employees to Turlock facility employees, and vice versa. [¶] 19. In a letter to NEMSA dated August 4, 2010, AMR informed NEMSA that it now had no intention of closing the Turlock facility and instead would use a unified posting plan with both facilities remaining open and handling calls for service through Stanislaus County."
Plaintiff further alleged:
"20. Under the 'redeployment' plan actually implemented, AMR has consistently and repeatedly assigned NEMSA bargaining unit work (i.e., calls for service originating in the geographic area served by the Modesto facility), to non-bargaining unit employees. Specifically, AMR has assigned calls for service originating within the geographic area served by the Modesto facility and within the bargaining unit represented by NEMSA to employees from the Turlock facility who are represented by TEMSA. AMR's 'redeployment' plan improperly eliminated the established distinction between bargaining unit work performed by NEMSA-represented employees and bargaining unit work performed by TEMSA-represented employees. AMR's 'redeployment' plan also improperly eliminated NEMSA's jurisdiction as the exclusive bargaining representative for AMR employed EMTs and Paramedics performing work in Stanislaus County, except for work performed in Turlock." Plaintiff further alleged:
"22. On or about July 31, 2010, NEMSA filed a grievance alleging that AMR's 'redeployment,' as implemented, violated the bargaining unit description set forth in Section 1.1 of the CBA and violated the prohibition against subcontracting set forth in Section 23.7 of the CBA. AMR's assignment of work to non-bargaining unit EMTs and Paramedics in areas of Stanislaus County other than Turlock violates Section 1.1 of the CBA which specifies in part that all EMTs and Paramedics in Stanislaus County are represented by NEMSA except for those in Turlock. AMR's assignment of Northern California bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit EMTs and Paramedics, whose working conditions are governed by a different collective bargaining agreement, violates Section 23.7 of the CBA forbidding the subcontracting of bargaining unit work. [¶] 23. On or about August 5, 2010, NEMSA requested that AMR permit an amendment to the July 31, 2010 grievance to include an allegation that AMR's 'redeployment,' as implemented, also constituted an improper transfer of bargaining unit work to non-bargaining unit employees. AMR refused to allow any amendment to the grievance, even though the time limit for filing the initial grievance had not passed. Because AMR refused to allow the initial grievance to be amended, NEMSA filed a second grievance on August 5, 2010 alleging that AMR's ...