Local 1982, International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Midwest Terminals of Toledo International, Inc.
694 F. App'x 985
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Midwest Terminals (employer) and ILA Local 1982 (union) are parties to a CBA requiring employer and union ERISA-approved welfare/pension plans.
- Union filed grievance (Dec 2011) that Midwest failed to establish ERISA-compliant trust funds; a two-person Joint Grievance Committee (one union rep, one employer rep) held a hearing March 2012 (Midwest did not participate).
- Committee issued a brief award finding a violation and stating “a procedure be moved forward to correct [Midwest]’s apparent violation,” but provided no concrete benchmarks or terms for the trust.
- District court originally vacated the award; Sixth Circuit reversed and directed enforcement. Parties then disputed what the award required and could not agree on trust terms.
- District court remanded the award to the same Committee for clarification; Midwest appealed, arguing (1) the award is unambiguous or otherwise requires interest arbitration (which it never consented to), (2) one panelist (Sierra) is disqualified by a prior DOL consent decree, and (3) the original employer panelist (Flagg) is unavailable so clarification is impossible.
- Sixth Circuit affirmed remand for clarification, rejecting Midwest’s arguments about interest arbitration, arbitrator disqualification (forfeited), and need for a new panel given practicality and that the Committee remains the authorized entity under the CBA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award is ambiguous such that remand for clarification is proper | Union: award requires establishment of ERISA trust plans jointly administered; remand needed to define procedure and trustee roles | Midwest: award is clear — it only requires establishing plans meeting minimum ERISA standards and negotiations; no remand needed | Held: Award is ambiguous (remedy lacks benchmarks and meaning of “procedure”) — remand for clarification appropriate |
| Whether Clarification would impermissibly convert to interest arbitration | Union: clarification would interpret and implement the existing award (grievance arbitration) | Midwest: Union’s proposed terms would create new contract terms (interest arbitration) to which Midwest never consented | Held: Court need not decide now; ambiguity requires clarification first to determine scope; possible excess on remand can be reviewed later |
| Whether remand must go to a new arbitration panel because one original member is unavailable | Union: the arbitration entity (Committee) under the CBA remains valid and can clarify even if membership changed | Midwest: Flagg left and Sierra is allegedly disqualified by a 2003 DOL consent decree, so original panel cannot clarify and a new panel is required | Held: Sierra-disqualification argument forfeited (not raised earlier); panel membership change does not preclude remand; district court may remand to the Committee as the authorized entity |
| Whether Sierra was disqualified for bias/misconduct requiring new panel | Union: no timely objection; no exceptional circumstances | Midwest: DOL consent decree shows Sierra unfit to oversee ERISA plans, so clarification by him would be tainted | Held: Argument forfeited for failure to raise at arbitration; Midwest did not show exceptional circumstances to excuse forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Ameritech Corp., 200 F.3d 967 (6th Cir. 2000) (functus officio exception allows arbitrator to clarify ambiguous award)
- M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., 143 F.3d 1033 (6th Cir. 1998) (standards for reviewing ambiguity and remand for clarification)
- M & C Corp. v. Erwin Behr GmbH & Co., 326 F.3d 772 (6th Cir. 2003) (arbitrator’s power to clarify under functus officio)
- Sterling China Co. v. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers Local 24, 357 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2004) (clarification exception reiterated)
- Jones v. St. Louis–San Francisco Ry. Co., 728 F.2d 257 (6th Cir. 1984) (concerns when panel members who heard evidence did not participate in award)
- U.S. Energy Corp. v. Nukem, Inc., 400 F.3d 822 (10th Cir. 2005) (remand allowed despite panel member change where original award exists)
- San Antonio Newspaper Guild Local No. 25 v. San Antonio Light Div., 481 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1973) (remanding to original or existing arbitration entity favored for efficiency)