Merryman Excavation, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150
639 F.3d 286
7th Cir.2011Background
- Merryman Excavation, Inc. sued to vacate nine joint committee awards under §301 the Labor Management Relations Act, after Local 150 prevailed on grievances during a joint committee hearing.
- The joint grievance committee consisted of an equal number of employer and Local 150 representatives; a majority decision was final and binding with no appeal.
- The grievances arose under a MARBA/Local 150 collective bargaining agreement governing assignment of work, wages, and dispute resolution procedures, including informal steps and a joint committee, with arbitration only if the joint committee deadlocked.
- Merryman was represented at hearings by its attorney, despite a contract provision prohibiting attorney participation, and various procedural objections were raised during the proceedings.
- Merryman argued procedural flaws, lack of equal representation, awards to union funds rather than individuals, and bias against Merryman; Local 150 sought enforcement of the awards.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Local 150, holding the joint committee’s awards were final and binding and not subject to FAA review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether joint committee awards are subject to FAA review as arbitral awards | Merryman argues for FAA-like impartiality and review | Local 150 argues joint committee is not FAA arbitration; awards are binding under the contract | No; joint committee is not FAA arbitration; review is limited to contract interpretation and equal representation evidence. |
| Whether Merryman waived judicial review by failing to raise issues before the joint committee | Merryman waived arguments by not raising them before the committee | Waiver does not bar review because the process is not arbitration; binding under the contract | Waiver not dispositive; review limited to equal representation and procedures under the agreement. |
| Whether the joint committee exceeded its authority by directing awards to union funds rather than individuals | Awards to funds violate Article I, Sec. 11 | Committee had plenary power to determine disputes under the agreement | Within the committee’s plenary authority; not reviewable on merits. |
| Whether the joint committee was biased against Merryman affecting awards | Evidence of partiality due to committee composition and litigation | Joint committee balanced by equal representation; no direct evidence of bias against Merryman | Not a basis to vacate absent equal representation evidence; FAA impartiality standards do not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 89 v. Riss & Co., 372 U.S. 517 (U.S. Supreme Court 1963) (joint committee awards not subject to FAA arbitration review; binding resolution)
- Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (federal courts apply governing law to disputes; right body of law applies)
- ISI Int'l, Inc. v. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548 (7th Cir. 2001) (federal courts identify proper construction of governing law in complex disputes)
- Chicago Cartage Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 710, 659 F.2d 825 (7th Cir. 1981) (bias and arbitration-like considerations in joint committee context; enforceability stance)
- Thomas v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 890 F.2d 909 (7th Cir. 1989) (imperfect neutrality concerns on joint committees; role of representation)