Teamsters Local No. 579 v. B & M Transit, Inc.
882 F.2d 274, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 803, 132 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2255 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A party that fails to file a motion to vacate a labor arbitration award within the applicable state statute of limitations is barred from raising affirmative defenses in a subsequent federal court proceeding to confirm that award.
Facts:
- Teamsters Local Union 579 (the Union) and B & M Transit (the Company) were parties to a collective bargaining agreement.
- On May 12, 1987, the Union filed a grievance alleging the Company violated the agreement by not requiring its casual drivers and an owner-driver, Thomas G. McCaffrey, to become Union members.
- The Union demanded that the Company compel these individuals to join the Union and terminate any who refused.
- The dispute was submitted to a Joint Grievance Committee panel for arbitration.
- On August 31, 1987, the arbitration panel issued a decision, ruling that McCaffrey was covered by the agreement and instructing the Company to comply with the terms of its labor agreement with the Union.
- Following the decision, the Company advised McCaffrey of the outcome, and he quit his employment on September 30, 1987.
- The Company did not file any legal action to challenge or vacate the arbitration award within the following months.
Procedural Posture:
- On May 10, 1988, approximately eight months after the arbitration decision, the Union filed a complaint in U.S. District Court to enforce the award.
- In its answer, the Company raised several affirmative defenses challenging the validity and scope of the arbitration award.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment in the district court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Union, holding the Company was barred from raising its defenses because it failed to move to vacate the award within Wisconsin's three-month statute of limitations.
- The district court also granted the Union's request for sanctions and ordered the Company to pay $7,025 in attorney's fees under Rule 11.
- The Company (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the Union as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party's failure to move to vacate a labor arbitration award within the state's prescribed statute of limitations for such motions bar it from raising affirmative defenses in a subsequent federal action to confirm the award?
Opinions:
Majority - Harlington Wood, Jr.
Yes. A party's failure to move to vacate a labor arbitration award within the applicable limitations period precludes it from raising affirmative defenses in a later confirmation proceeding. Federal labor law (§ 301 of the LMRA) does not have its own statute of limitations for challenging arbitration awards, so courts must borrow the most appropriate limitations period from the forum state. Following circuit precedent set in Jefferson Trucking, the court holds that the proper statute to borrow is the state's statute of limitations for moving to vacate an award—in this case, Wisconsin's three-month limit—not the longer period for confirming one. The federal policy of promoting speed and finality in arbitration requires that challenges be brought promptly. The court rejected the Company's argument that a state court interpretation allowing such defenses should apply, reasoning that federal courts only borrow the time period itself, not the state's substantive application of it. The court also found the arbitration award was not ambiguous when read in the context of the grievance, which clearly raised issues concerning both McCaffrey and the casual drivers, making remand for clarification unnecessary. Finally, the court upheld Rule 11 sanctions against the Company for making frivolous arguments and misrepresenting case law.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the rule in the Seventh Circuit that challenges to arbitration awards must be made swiftly. By mandating the use of the typically shorter state statute of limitations for vacating awards as a bar to defenses in confirmation actions, the court strengthens the finality of arbitration. This precedent prevents a losing party from strategically delaying its challenge until the victor seeks enforcement, a tactic that could undermine the efficiency and integrity of the arbitration process. The case serves as a crucial procedural warning to practitioners: any substantive objections to an arbitration award must be raised in a motion to vacate within the statutory window, or they are waived.
Unlock the full brief for Teamsters Local No. 579 v. B & M Transit, Inc.