United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union AFL-CIO-CLC v. Wise Alloys, LLC
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 21225
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Wise Alloys and the USW entered a CBA (Nov. 1, 2007–Nov. 1, 2012) that set annual increases in weekly health-care premiums and a quarterly cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) intended to offset premiums; the CBA also contained a zipper clause and an arbitration clause prohibiting modification of the agreement.
- Dispute: Union claimed COLA accumulates (offsets each year); Company contended COLA resets each contract year when the premium is set.
- Union filed a grievance in October 2009 after earlier company communications and retroactive premium deductions; Company treated the grievance as untimely and declined arbitration in correspondence, culminating in further letters in 2010.
- Union sued under §301 (LMRA) solely to compel arbitration; district court (June 15, 2012) granted summary judgment compelling arbitration and stayed/administratively closed the case; arbitration proceeded.
- Arbitrator (Jan. 22, 2014) held the failure to apply COLA was a continuing violation limited to recent paychecks and construed the ambiguous CBA by reference to prior practice, awarding relief to the Union; district court (Dec. 9, 2014) confirmed the award and denied the Union’s request for attorney’s fees; appeals followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (Wise Alloys) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over appeal of June 2012 order compelling arbitration | Company appealed both orders together; Union argued nothing bars appellate review | Company argued stay converted the June 2012 order into interlocutory, so appeal from 2014 notice was timely for both orders | Court: No jurisdiction over Company's appeal of the June 2012 order — it was a final, appealable order and the Company failed to file a timely notice of appeal within 30 days |
| Whether timeliness of grievance is for arbitrator (arbitrability) | Timeliness is for arbitrator; the grievance alleges continuing violation | Timeliness is a non‑arbitrable gateway issue and grievance was untimely | District court and panel: Timeliness was arbitrable; Company’s earlier letter was not an unequivocal refusal to arbitrate |
| Validity of arbitrator’s award: continuing‑violation and use of extrinsic evidence despite zipper/no‑modification clauses | Arbitrator properly found latent ambiguity and applied past practice; continuing‑violation characterization limited relief to recent paychecks | Arbitrator exceeded authority: created an exception to time limits and violated zipper/no‑modification clauses by consulting extrinsic evidence | Court: Award enforced. Arbitrator’s continuing‑violation construction and resort to extrinsic evidence were permissible; the award drew its essence from the CBA |
| Award of attorney’s fees to Union for defending confirmation | Fees warranted because Company’s vacatur motion lacked merit | Company argued reasonable grounds existed to challenge award; denial of fees appropriate | Court: Affirmed denial. District court explained fees were not warranted because Company’s challenge was not baseless given unsettled law |
Key Cases Cited
- Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Ala. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (Sup. Ct. 2000) (finality of orders compelling arbitration and appealability principles)
- Goodall-Sanford, Inc. v. United Textile Workers, 353 U.S. 550 (Sup. Ct. 1957) (LMRA §301 decree compelling arbitration is final)
- United Paperworkers Int’l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29 (Sup. Ct. 1987) (deferential standard for judicial review of arbitral awards)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (timeliness of appeal is jurisdictional and mandatory)
- UMass Mem’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, 527 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (approving continuing‑violation framing for recurring paycheck disputes)