Carlisle Power Transmission Products, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, Local Union No. 662, 725 F.3d 864

Union and Carlisle were parties to a 2001 CBA (effective Apr 1, 2001–Mar 31, 2006) and a successor 2006 CBA; CBAs provided grievance procedures and arbitration for contract disputes.
Employee Gary Mincks (bargaining-unit) received Aetna long-term disability (LTD) and Social Security Disability benefits beginning in 2004; Aetna later offset/recovered LTD payments as overlapping "other income."
The Union filed a grievance on Mincks’s behalf in March 2006 seeking restoration of benefits; Carlisle contested arbitrability under the (then-expired) 2001 CBA and the parties submitted the procedural arbitrability question to a neutral arbitrator under the 2006 CBA.
In 2007 an arbitrator ruled the grievance was arbitrable under the 2006 CBA; Carlisle sought to vacate the award, lost in district court, and lost on appeal (Eighth Circuit, 2009).
In December 2010 Carlisle refused to proceed to the scheduled arbitration, arguing LTD issues are governed exclusively by the Aetna plan and thus not arbitrable, and sued for declaratory judgment; the district court granted Carlisle summary judgment but found the Union had waived res judicata.
On appeal the Eighth Circuit held res judicata applied and the Union had not acquiesced in claim-splitting; the appellate court vacated the district court order and remanded with directions to dismiss Carlisle’s complaint.

Issue	Carlisle's Argument	Union's Argument	Held
Whether Carlisle’s 2010 declaratory-judgment action is barred by res judicata	2007 arbitration was limited; new theory (LTD governed by Aetna) wasn't precluded	2007 arbitration decided arbitrability under 2006 CBA; same parties, claim, and facts — res judicata bars re-litigation	Res judicata applies; 2010 suit barred and must be dismissed
Whether the Union waived or acquiesced to claim-splitting by limiting 2007 arbitration issue	Union purportedly agreed to limit issues in 2007, so Carlisle may raise other defenses later	Union only deferred merits to decide arbitrability; did not consent to claim-splitting	No waiver or acquiescence; exception to res judicata doesn't apply
Whether LTD disputes are excluded from arbitration under the 2006 CBA	LTD benefits are controlled by the Aetna plan and thus outside CBA arbitration	Grievance procedures and prior arbitration addressed arbitrability under the 2006 CBA	Court did not reach merits; res judicata bars consideration of Carlisle’s new theory
Appropriate remedy	Declaratory judgment that grievance not arbitrable	Dismissal of Carlisle’s complaint as precluded	Vacated district court judgment; remanded with directions to dismiss Carlisle’s action

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (establishes res judicata preclusion of relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised)
Val-U Constr. Co. of S.D. v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe, 146 F.3d 573 (arbitrator’s decision on arbitrability can constitute a final judgment on the merits)
Wintermute v. Kan. Bankers Sur. Co., 630 F.3d 1063 (elements required for res judicata)
Banks v. Int’l Union Elec., Elec., Technical, Salaried & Mach. Workers, 390 F.3d 1049 (claims arising from same nucleus of operative facts are the same cause of action)
Friez v. First Am. Bank & Trust of Minot, 324 F.3d 580 (different legal theories do not avoid claim preclusion)
Roach v. Teamsters Local Union No. 688, 595 F.2d 446 (same)
Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852 (discusses claim-splitting exception where defendants acquiesce)