885 F.3d 230
4th Cir.2018Background
- Airgas planned to relocate two Hyattsville, MD operations to nonunion sites, affecting ~13 union jobs (~20% of unit).
- The Union invoked the CBA’s mandatory arbitration clause and sought a preliminary injunction under the Boys Markets line of cases to preserve the status quo pending arbitration.
- The district court granted the injunction, enjoining relocation of functions, equipment/materials, and staffing changes until a final arbitration award.
- Airgas appealed the injunction to the Fourth Circuit while arbitration proceeded.
- While the appeal was pending the arbitrator issued a final award for the Union, holding Airgas’s proposed transfer violated Article 10 of the CBA and permanently enjoining the move.
- The Fourth Circuit dismissed Airgas’s appeal as moot because the arbitrator’s award eliminated any live relief Airgas could obtain and foreclosed damages claims arising from the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to enter a pre‑arbitral injunction under Norris‑LaGuardia | Union: Boys Markets exception allows injunction where arbitrator could not restore status quo | Airgas: Norris‑LaGuardia bars such injunctions; district court lacked jurisdiction | Court: District court had jurisdiction under Boys Markets; injunction permissible where status‑quo could not be restored absent injunction |
| Mootness of appeal after arbitrator’s award | Airgas: Appeal not moot because it can recover damages/fees for wrongful injunction period | Union: Arbitrator award moots appeal because it confirms Airgas had no right to relocate | Court: Appeal moot — arbitrator’s award establishes Airgas had no right to relocate, so no damages; attorney fees/costs insufficient to create live controversy |
| Availability of damages against injunction bond | Airgas: Bond preserves claim for damages if injunction improper | Union: Bond alone does not overcome lack of damages because arbitrator foreclosed right to act | Court: Bond does not save appeal; damages prerequisite lacking because arbitrator established conduct was prohibited |
| Applicability of ‘‘capable of repetition yet evading review’’ | Airgas (dissent): Labor injunctions often evade review; exception should apply | Union/Majority: Regularly cases can be reviewed; exception is narrow and not invoked here | Court: Exception not applicable — no reasonable likelihood of repetition that would evade review in this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235 (1970) (narrow exception allowing injunctions to protect arbitration where status quo could not be restored)
- Columbia Local, Am. Postal Workers Union v. Bolger, 621 F.2d 615 (4th Cir. 1980) (applying Boys Markets exception in Fourth Circuit)
- Lever Bros. Co. v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, Local 217, 554 F.2d 115 (4th Cir. 1976) (Fourth Circuit precedent on pre‑arbitral injunctions)
- Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) (preliminary injunction moot when final decision makes earlier relief harmless)
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunction factors)
- Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (attorney’s fees and sunk costs insufficient to create Article III controversy)
- Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Teamsters Local No. 71 v. Akers Motor Lines, Inc., 582 F.2d 1336 (4th Cir. 1978) (Fourth Circuit decision addressing relocation and injunctions)
- Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. 2013) (mootness principles for appeals)