District No. 1, Pacific Coast District, Marine Engineers' Beneficial Ass'n v. Liberty Maritime Corp.
815 F.3d 834
D.C. Cir.2016Background
- Liberty and MEBA long treated MEBA engineers as supervisory personnel under successive CBAs for over two decades.
- The most recent CBA was extended by an MOU to September 30, 2011, creating a New Agreement with an arbitration clause and a duration provision.
- The New Agreement provided arbitration for disputes and a duration clause that extended by notice to amend and impasse until resolved.
- Liberty notified intent to terminate on September 30, 2011; MEBA gave notice to amend; negotiations continued with contested impasse timing.
- MEBA submitted grievances on October 1, 2011 alleging contract violations; Liberty replaced MEBA workers with AMO thereafter.
- The district court held that MEBA’s suit fell under LMRA §301, and the dispute over impasse was arbitrable under the New Agreement; Liberty appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under §301? | MEBA: LMRA §301 provides jurisdiction for contract violations. | Liberty: jurisdiction hinges on whether impasse occurred and contract duration issues; may defeat jurisdiction if unavailable. | Jurisdiction exists under §301; contract existence is an element, not a jurisdictional prerequisite. |
| Is duration/impasse a question for arbitration or the court? | MEBA: duration/impasse is arbitrable under broad arbitration clause. | Liberty: duration should be decided by the court if arbitration is not clearly intended for such issues. | Duration/impasse is arbitrable under the broad clause; court may compel arbitration. |
| Is the dispute primarily representational or contractual for jurisdiction? | MEBA: the suit seeks contractual relief for breach of the CBA; falls under §301. | Liberty: dispute centers on representational issues (which union represents) and NLRA; not purely contractual. | Dispute is primarily contractual; not purely representational; district court properly exercised jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (framework for arbitrability and when to arbitrate disputes)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitration is a matter of contract)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Boston & Maine Corp., 850 F.2d 756 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (trichotomy of arbitrability: formation, breadth, duration)
- Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967) (NLRB exclusive jurisdiction vs. LMRA §301 concurrency)
- San Diego Bldg. Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (Garmon preemption; NLRA exclusive jurisdiction)
- Morello v. Federal Barge Lines, Inc., 746 F.2d 1347 (8th Cir. 1984) (representational vs. contractual and effect on jurisdiction)