Roughneck Concrete Drilling & Sawing Co. v. Plumbers' Pension Fund, Local 130
640 F.3d 761
| 7th Cir. | 2011Background
- Roughneck, a Chicago contractor, faces a $2.2 million audit-related claim for allegedly non-plumber work performed in plumbing-related tasks under multi-union CBAs and benefit funds.
- Grievances were filed with the Joint Arbitration Board; Roughneck also asserted jurisdictional disputes among the plumbers, electricians, and laborers; the National Plan defines an 'impediment to job progress' to include jurisdictional grievances.
- Greenberg, a National Plan arbitrator, ruled on July 21, 2008 that the Joint Arbitration Board hearing should be dismissed as beyond its jurisdiction and that the dispute should be handled under the National Plan instead.
- Despite Greenberg's order, the Joint Arbitration Board proceeded; Roughneck did not attend, and the Board awarded the plumbers' fund over $3.3 million for delinquent contributions.
- Roughneck and the plumbers' fund filed LMRA §301(a) suits in district court seeking to vacate the Board’s award and enforce Greenberg's order; Illinois law provides 90-day limitations to challenge arbitration awards and 5 years to enforce them, with timing arguments central to the dispute.
- The Seventh Circuit ultimately held that Greenberg's order controls and that the case should be reversed and remanded to enforce Greenberg's order while vacating the Joint Arbitration Board's award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of challenging Greenberg's order | Fund argues 90-day limit bars challenge to Greenberg order. | Roughneck notes timely defense against Roughneck's suit and that fund's defenses are timely via Roughneck's mirror suit. | The defense was timely; 90-day limit governs defenses to enforcing arbitration awards, and the fund timely raised defenses in Roughneck's challenge. |
| Whether Roughneck validly consented to arbitration before the Board | Roughneck voluntarily invoked Joint Arbitration Board, waiving challenges to Board jurisdiction. | Fund contends Roughneck withdrew consent by invoking National Plan and thus Board lacked jurisdiction. | Roughneck's withdrawal and timing justified challenging jurisdiction; cannot permit 'heads I win, tails you lose' approach. |
| Precedence between Greenberg's order and the Joint Arbitration Board's award | Board award should be enforced because Greenberg's order was not binding on the Board. | Greenberg's order extinguishes the Board's award and controls the dispute under the National Plan. | Greenberg's order prevails; Board's award must be vacated and Greenberg's order enforced. |
| Appropriate remedy for inconsistent awards on same work | Enforce the Board's award against Roughneck and validate arbitration results. | When awards are inconsistent, a new arbitration is warranted to resolve all interests harmoniously. | A new tripartite arbitration is appropriate; the National Plan contemplates a unified resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones Dairy Farm v. Local No. P-1236, United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, 760 F.2d 173 (7th Cir.1985) (consent to arbitration binds party unless void or beyond scope)
- Nghiem v. NEC Electronic, Inc., 25 F.3d 1437 (9th Cir.1994) (withdrawal from arbitration can affect authority distinctions)
- Local 416, Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n v. Helgesteel Corp., 507 F.2d 1053 (7th Cir.1974) (when two awards conflict, re-arbitrate to resolve dispute)
- Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664 (7th Cir.2009) (federal policy favors arbitration; third-party rights matter)