International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Afl-Cio, Local 241 v. Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 06-3450
________________
INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL
ENGINEERS, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 241,
Appellant,
v.
LOCKHEED MARTIN MARITIME SYSTEMS AND SENSORS (formerly NAVAL
ELECTRONIC AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS-SURFACE SYSTEMS)
________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 05-cv-00484)
District Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
_________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
June 29, 2007
_________________
Before: BARRY, FUENTES, and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed: July 19, 2007)
__________________
OPINION
__________________
Garth, Circuit Judge:
The appeal taken by the International Federation of Professional and Technical
Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local 241 (“the union”) challenged the decision of Lockheed Martin

-- 1 of 2 --

Maritime Systems and Sensors (“Lockheed Martin”) to bring third-party employees into its
Moorestown, New Jersey facility to perform approximately 640 hours of Drafter Designer-
Electrical work. The union asserted that Lockheed Martin’s action violated the parties’
Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and sought to have the dispute submitted to
arbitration. Alternatively, in the event it was held that the dispute was not arbitrable per the
terms of the CBA, the union argued that Lockheed Martin’s decision to engage
subcontractors to perform the work rather than to recall Christopher Vansaghi, a union
member and employee on layoff, violated the CBA.
The District Court carefully reviewed the arguments of counsel and the CBA
provisions at issue and concluded in a well-reasoned opinion that the grievance did involve
subcontracting and thus was not arbitrable. It also held that Lockheed Martin had not
violated the CBA by subcontracting rather than recalling a worker on layoff.
For the reasons so ably expressed by the District Court judge in his opinion dated June
21, 2006, we will affirm the judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin.
2

-- 2 of 2 --