827 F.3d 672
7th Cir.2016Background
- William Charles Construction worked on an IDOT Project Labor Agreement (PLA) job using 16 articulated-end dump (AED) trucks; AED truck operation overlapped Teamsters and Operating Engineers jurisdictions.
- At a pre-job conference William Charles assigned AED trucks to the Engineers; the Teamsters filed a jurisdictional grievance under the PLA, arbitrated by a neutral (Zipp), who awarded the work to the Teamsters but awarded no back pay or benefits.
- The Teamsters then filed a separate grievance against William Charles under the Articles of Construction Agreement (ACA), which William Charles was bound to follow only insofar as the ACA did not conflict with the PLA; the Teamsters sought back pay and benefits via the ACA’s Joint Grievance Committee (JGC).
- The JGC heard the grievances March 26, 2014; Teamsters claim final decisions were issued then and reduced to writing April 3 email; William Charles contends the April 3 email was a proposed decision pending AGCI approval and that it did not receive a final award until later (or until the Teamsters filed them as exhibits).
- Teamsters demanded ~$1.4 million on July 17, 2014; William Charles filed suit under §301 of the LMRA on July 31, 2014 seeking declaratory relief that only Zipp’s arbitration award was enforceable; Teamsters counterclaimed to enforce the two JGC awards.
- District court granted Teamsters’ summary judgment, holding William Charles’s challenge time-barred; Seventh Circuit reversed: (1) the 90-day limitations did not begin because William Charles lacked delivery of final awards, and (2) the large JGC AED-truck award is void because William Charles never agreed to have jurisdictional disputes (or damages flowing from PLA interpretation) decided by the JGC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (William Charles) | Defendant's Argument (Teamsters) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether William Charles’s challenge to JGC awards is time-barred by Illinois’ 90-day arbitration challenge period | No—limitations did not start because William Charles never received delivery of a final written award; April 3 email was a proposed decision pending AGCI approval and no copy of a final award was delivered until the Teamsters filed them as exhibits | Yes—JGC made final decisions at the March 26 hearing and reduced them to writing April 3; plaintiff had notice so the 90-day clock ran earlier | Reversed: challenge not time-barred; delivery of a copy of the award is required to start the limitations period and record supports view that final delivery occurred later than the district court found |
| Whether the AED-truck grievance was arbitrable before the JGC (i.e., whether defendants could properly proceed to JGC) | Not arbitrable—PLA provides exclusive jurisdictional-dispute process; the AED grievance was jurisdictional (and flowed from Zipp’s PLA interpretation), so William Charles never agreed to JGC arbitration or to JGC deciding damages arising from PLA interpretation | Arbitrable—the ACA grievance alleges violations of ACA articles and William Charles agreed to abide by the ACA under the PLA; district court treated grievance as non-jurisdictional and properly before JGC | Reversed: AED-truck award void—grievance was jurisdictional/derived from PLA interpretation and William Charles did not agree to submit such disputes (or resulting damages) to the JGC |
| Whether William Charles waived arbitrability defense by participating in JGC hearing without preserving objection | Waiver not established—William Charles objected before and after the hearing and preserved arbitrability objection in writing; joint-committee context uses a less strict waiver rule | Waiver—William Charles participated and argued merits, failing to unambiguously preserve arbitrability objection at hearing | Court held no waiver: record shows objections were preserved (written pre-hearing and testimony supporting contemporaneous objection); strict waiver rule relaxed for joint committees |
| Whether the Teamsters’ smaller seniority JGC award is enforceable | Challenge to timeliness and to notice; William Charles concedes JGC could hear seniority grievance but disputes notice/timing | Teamsters contend the JGC decision was final and properly delivered | Timeliness/notice issue: summary-judgment record did not clearly show delivery; remanded for further proceedings (larger AED-truck award dismissed; small seniority award not enforced at this stage) |
Key Cases Cited
- Merryman Excavation, Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150, 639 F.3d 286 (7th Cir. 2011) (joint committee awards treated like arbitration awards for many purposes)
- Chauffeurs, Teamsters, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 135 v. Jefferson Trucking Co., 628 F.2d 1023 (7th Cir. 1980) (standards for treating joint-committee resolutions as arbitration)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986) (arbitration is by contract; courts decide arbitrability unless parties clearly and unmistakably delegate it)
- Smart v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 702, 315 F.3d 721 (7th Cir. 2002) (an arbitration award is final when the arbitrator thinks he is through)
- Jones Dairy Farm v. Local No. P-1236, United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, 760 F.2d 173 (7th Cir. 1985) (voluntary submission to arbitration waives jurisdictional objections absent clear reservation)
- Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Lodge No. 1777 v. Fansteel, Inc., 900 F.2d 1005 (7th Cir. 1990) (how to preserve arbitrability issue for judicial review)