International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1547, AFL-CIO v. Alaska Communications Systems Holdings, Inc.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL 1547, AFL-CIO,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALASKA COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:19-cv-00160-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Before 	the 	Court 	at 	Docket 	26 	is 	Defendant 	Alaska 	Communications
Systems Holdings, Inc.’s (“Alaska Communications”) Motion for Reconsideration.
At the Court’s request, Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local Union No. 1547 (“IBEW 1547”) responded in opposition at Docket 28.1 The
Court did not request a reply from Alaska Communications.
On 	December 	11, 	2019, 	this 	Court 	granted 	IBEW 	1547’s 	motion 	for
summary judgment and ordered Alaska Communications to select an arbitrator
within seven days.2 The Court entered a final judgment the following day.3 Alaska
1 See Local Civil Rule 7.3(h).
2 Docket 24.
3 Docket 25.
Case 3:19-cv-00160-SLG Document 31 Filed 12/31/19 Page 1 of 5

Case No. 3:19-cv-00160-SLG, Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers v. Alaska Comm. Sys.
Holdings, Inc.
Order re Motion for Reconsideration
Page 2 of 5
Communications now asks this Court to reconsider and amend its order to change
the seven-day deadline to a 40-day deadline.4 Alaska Communications contends
that the Court made an “inadvertent error of law because it [did] not take into
account relevant appeal deadlines” and the seven-day deadline “conflicts with and
comprises [Alaska Communications’] right to appeal the Order” within 30 days.5
Alaska Communications adds that IBEW 1547 did not request the seven-day
deadline and asked only for an order to select an arbitrator “without delay.”6 Alaska
Communications maintains that complying with the seven-day deadline will have
inequitable consequences. 	Specifically, Alaska Communications is concerned,
first, that its compliance with the Court’s order will be construed as a waiver of its
right to appeal and, second, that it will incur unnecessary fees and costs in
selecting an arbitrator.7
IBEW 1547 disagrees, emphasizing that Alaska Communications’ position
assumes that it has a right to a stay pending appeal.8 IBEW 1547 maintains that
a stay of injunctive relief pending appeal is not as of right, but is a matter of
discretion to be evaluated by considering the likelihood of success on the merits,
4 Docket 26 at 2.
5 Docket 26 at 2. 	Alaska Communications’ deadline to appeal is January 13, 2020.
Docket 26 at 3.
6 Docket 26 at 4.
7 Docket 26 at 4–5.
8 Docket 28 at 2.
Case 3:19-cv-00160-SLG Document 31 Filed 12/31/19 Page 2 of 5

Case No. 3:19-cv-00160-SLG, Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers v. Alaska Comm. Sys.
Holdings, Inc.
Order re Motion for Reconsideration
Page 3 of 5
the likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest.9
IBEW 1547 contends that Alaska Communications cannot satisfy this standard; it
predicts that Alaska Communications will not succeed on the merits and maintains
that the balance of hardships are in IBEW 1547’s favor as the dispute has been
ongoing for a year and the delay has a “direct and ongoing impact on the [relevant]
employees” as they are denied certain wages and other benefits.10
LEGAL STANDARD
The district court’s local rule provides that a motion for reconsideration of an
order granting a dispositive motion must be filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or
60.11
Rule 59(e) allows a party to seek an order altering or amending the
judgment.12 The Ninth Circuit has stated that “there are four basic grounds upon
which a Rule 59(e) motion may be granted: 	(1) if such a motion is necessary to
correct manifest errors of law or fact upon which the judgment rests; (2) if such
motion 	is 	necessary 	to 	present 	newly 	discovered 	or 	previously 	unavailable
9 Docket 28 at 2.
10 Docket 28 at 4.
11 See Local Civil Rule 7.3(h)(5).
12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) provides that “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment must be
filed no later than 28 days after the entry of a judgment.”
Case 3:19-cv-00160-SLG Document 31 Filed 12/31/19 Page 3 of 5

Case No. 3:19-cv-00160-SLG, Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers v. Alaska Comm. Sys.
Holdings, Inc.
Order re Motion for Reconsideration
Page 4 of 5
evidence; (3) if such a motion is necessary to prevent manifest injustice; or (4) if
the amendment is justified by an intervening change in controlling law.”13
Rule 60(b) provides that:
the court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment, order, or
proceeding for the following reasons: 	(1) mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence that
with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud (whether previously
called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been
satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment
that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no
longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief.
DISCUSSION
Alaska Communications moves for the Court to amend its order on the
grounds that it contains an “inadvertent error of law because it [did] not take into
account relevant appeal deadlines.”14 	The Court agrees and will grant Alaska
Communications’ request to amend the seven-day deadline. A short extension of
the 	Court’s 	order 	will 	alleviate 	Alaska 	Communications’ 	concerns 	about
inadvertent waiver and unnecessary costs and will not unduly prejudice IBEW
1547.15
13 Allstate Inc. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011).
14 Docket 26 at 4.
15 Because Alaska Communications has not moved to stay the Court’s order pending
appeal, the Court need not address IBEW 1547’s arguments on that issue.
Case 3:19-cv-00160-SLG Document 31 Filed 12/31/19 Page 4 of 5

Case No. 3:19-cv-00160-SLG, Int’l Brotherhood of Elec. Workers v. Alaska Comm. Sys.
Holdings, Inc.
Order re Motion for Reconsideration
Page 5 of 5
CONCLUSION
In 	light 	of 	the 	foregoing, 	IT 	IS 	ORDERED 	as 	follows: 	Alaska
Communications’ Motion for Reconsideration at Docket 26 is GRANTED. 	Alaska
Communications must select an arbitrator for grievance ACS 19-02 pursuant to
the terms set out in Article IV of the CBA within seven days following the deadline
to appeal this Court’s order at Docket 24 and the resultant Final Judgment at
Docket 25.
DATED this 31st day of December, 2019 at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:19-cv-00160-SLG Document 31 Filed 12/31/19 Page 5 of 5