John Palmer, et al. v. John Renner, et al. (Memorandum Decision)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS John Palmer, et al., Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners FILED October 16, 2015 vs) No. 14-1111 (Monongalia County 12-C-42) RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA John Renner, et al., Defendants Below, Respondent MEMORANDUM DECISION Petitioners and plaintiffs below, John Palmer, Scott Lepka, Clif Tennant, Dewayne Jarvis, and Robert Hillberry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by counsel Jaques R. Williams, Alex J. Shook, and Andrew G. Meek, appeal the orders of the Circuit Court of Monongalia County which granted summary judgment in favor of respondents and defendants below, who are supervisory employees at Patriot Coal, LLC (“Patriot”) and Eastern Associated Coal, LLC, (“Eastern”). The circuit court found that petitioners’ claims were controlled by a collective bargaining agreement and therefore preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. Respondents John Renner, by counsel Paul Cranston; Randel Coffindaffer, by counsel William A. Kolibash; and Blair McGill by counsel Stephen R. Brooks and Lindsay Saad, each filed a response This Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these reasons, a memorandum decision affirming the circuit court’s order is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. At all relevant times, petitioners were employed by Eastern under a collective bargaining agreement. In their complaint filed January 30, 2012, petitioners alleged that in February of 2010, Respondent Renner was a fire-boss at Patriot’s Federal Number 2 mine, and was in charge of performing periodic testing to ensure that excessive levels of methane gas were not accumulating in the mine. Petitioners alleged that Respondent Coffindaffer, the mine foreman, and Respondent McGill, the mine manager, directed Respondent Renner to inaccurately record the methane gas readings, and not to evacuate the mine in an effort to conceal the danger of high methane gas readings. Petitioners also alleged that as a result of the levels of methane found by the Mine Safety and Health Administration, the coal mine was idled for an extended period of time. Petitioners sought to recover economic damages resulting from the wrongful idling of the mine and respondents’ misconduct. 1 Patriot and Eastern removed the matter to federal court and the matter was remanded to the Circuit Court of Monongalia County on May 4, 2012. Patriot, Eastern, and Respondents McGill and Coffindaffer filed motions to dismiss the complaint, and argued that because the petitioners’ claims include lost wages, they are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Prior to the circuit court ruling on the motions to dismiss, Patriot and Eastern filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and an automatic stay was issued on July 11, 2012. During the time the stay was in place, the circuit court granted the motions to dismiss of McGill, Coffindaffer, Patriot and Eastern on March 22, 2013,1 as to Count 1 of the complaint.2 After the stay was lifted, on September 18, 2014, Respondent Renner filed a motion to dismiss. The circuit court granted Respondent Renner’s Motion to Dismiss on September 23, 2014. Petitioners appeal the orders entered on March 22, 2013, and September 23, 2014, which dismissed claims against Respondents Coffindaffer, McGill, and Renner pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners assert that the circuit court erred in ruling that their rights could not be determined without analyzing the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and petitioners’ claims were preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act. After careful consideration of the record and the parties’ arguments, we find that the circuit court did not err in dismissing petitioners’ claims. “Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de novo.” Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, 194 W.Va. 770, 461 S.E.2d 516 (1995). Moreover, “[t]he trial court, in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, should not dismiss the complaint unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-56, [78 S.Ct. 99, 2L.Ed.2d 80] (1957).” Syl. Pt. 3, Chapman v. Kane Transfer Co., Inc., 160 W.Va. 530, 236 S.E.2d 207 (1977). Petitioners argue that their claims do not arise under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and, therefore, are not subject to the basic grievance procedures required by the collective bargaining agreement. Relying upon our decision in syllabus point four of Greenfield v. Schimdt Bakery Co. Inc., 199 W.Va. 447, 485 S.E.2d 391 (1997), the circuit court held, “[a]n application of state law is preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1947) (1994 ed.), only if such application requires the interpretation of a collective-bargaining agreement.” The circuit court found that although petitioners filed claims for negligent breach of duty and intentional acts in breach of duty, the only damages claimed by petitioners were for lost wages due to the idling of the mine for a period of time. As a result, the circuit court found that the issue of whether petitioners should be compensated while the mine was idled must be determined from the rights and duties of the 1 Petitioners do not appeal the order dismissing Patriot and Eastern as defendants. 2 Petitioners assert that Count 2 of the complaint was dismissed for reasons that are not the subject of this appeal. 2 employees and employer under the collective bargaining agreement. The circuit court concluded that because it would be required to analyze the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in order to resolve the claim for lost wages, the claim should be treated as a § 301 action. We agree and find no reversible error. The circuit court’s order reflects its thorough analysis of the grounds raised in the petition. Having reviewed the opinion orders entered March 22, 2013, and September 23, 2014, we hereby adopt and incorporate the circuit court’s well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to all the assignments of error raised in this appeal. The clerk is directed to attach a copy of the circuit court’s order to this memorandum decision. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. Affirmed. ISSUED: October 16, 2015 CONCURRED IN BY: Justice Brent D. Benjamin Justice Menis E. Ketchum Justice Allen H. Loughry II DISSENTED IN BY: Chief Justice Margaret L. Workman Justice Robin Jean Davis 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
