Lоcal 36 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association (Local 36) appeals from a final judgment entered in the District Court for the Eastеrn District of Missouri dismissing its action to enforce an arbitration award against Pevely Sheet Metal Company (Pevely) as untimely filed.
Local 36, Sheet Metаl Workers Int’l Ass’n v. Pevely Sheet Metal Co.,
No. 90-0128C(3),
Local 36 had a collective bargaining agreement with Jones Sheet Metal, Inc. (Jones), which was principally owned by Richard Jones. This agreement included a provision requiring arbitration of grievances before the Joint Adjustment Board for thе Sheet Metal Industry. After Jones filed for bankruptcy in July, 1986, Pevely began operations with Richard Jones as the principal owner and operator. On November 17, 1986, Local 36 filed a grievance with the Local Joint Adjustment Board asking that Pevely be declared the alter-ego of Jones and therefore bound by the collective bargaining agreement.
The grievance was referred to the National Joint Adjustment Board (NJAB). On August 1, 1988, the NJAB met to consider Loсal 36’s grievance, but Pevely did not attend the meeting. On August 4, 1988, the NJAB issued its decision sustaining Local 36’s grievance and finding the collective bargaining agreement in full fоrce and effect and thus requiring Pevely to pay back wages and fringe benefit contributions as provided in the collective bargaining agreemеnt. The NJAB stated that it was unable to determine the exact amount of damages and instructed the parties to meet to resolve the damage аmount. In case the parties could not agree on an amount, the NJAB stated that it would retain jurisdiction “in the event the parties fail to agree on a satisfactory resolution of the issue.”
The parties were unable to resolve the issue of damages. On July 28, 1989, the NJAB met to calculate the damages and once again Pevely did not appear. On August 1, 1989, after hearing evidence from Local 36, the NJAB issued an order requiring Pevely to pay $276,120.00 for thе wage *949 and fringe benefit contributions required by the collective bargaining agreement.
Pevely refused to pay. On January 22, 1990, Local 36 filed a comрlaint in district court to enforce the arbitration award. Pevely filed its motion to dismiss or for summary judgment on March 12, 1990. The district court granted Pevely’s motion to dismiss on January 7, 1991. The district court found (1) the most analogous statute of limitations was the six-month period contained in section 10(b) and (2) the limitations period began to run from the date of the order finding liability (August 4, 1988) as opposed to the date of the order which established the amount of damages (August 1, 1989). Because the complaint was filed on January 22, 1990, more than six months after August 4, 1988, the district court dismissed the complaints as untimely filed. Local 36 then appealed to this court.
We hold that the August 4, 1988, order was not a final order and the limitations period did not begin running until the order determining damages was issued on August 1, 1989. Therefore, under either the six-month statute of limitations applied by the district court or longer limitations period requested by Local 36, 1 Local 36’s action to enforcе the arbitration award was timely filed in district court. We therefore do not reach the issue as to the appropriate statute of limitations tо be applied in this case.
Although the August 4, 1988, determination of liability was more than just a procedural event, it was not a final order. Whether the award indiсates that is final and whether the arbitrator intended the award to be final are factors in determining if an arbitration award is final.
See Local P-9, United Food & Commercial Workers Int’l Union v. George A. Hormel & Co.,
Pevely argues that the determination of damages was a “ministerial” detail and thus the August 4, 1988, order was final.
See United Steelworkers v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp.,
Therefore, because the August 4, 1988, order did not purport to be the final, enforceable order unless damages could be agreed on, and the NJAB specifically retained jurisdiction to determine damages, the August 4, 1988, оrder was not a final order. For an arbitration to be final and
*950
therefore federal court jurisdiction to be proper, there must be a “complete arbitration.” Some courts have called this the “complete arbitration” rule.
Union Switch & Signal Div., Am. Standard Inc. v. United Elec., Radio & Mach. Workers Local 610,
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court and remand the case to the district court for further prоceedings consistent with our opinion.
Notes
. Local 36 argues that the six-month statute of limitations in Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b) does nоt apply in this case. Instead Local 36 argues that Missouri law should apply. Missouri law establishes no limitation period for actions to enforcе or confirm arbitration awards, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 435.400 (Supp.1991). In the alternative, Local 36 alleges that Missouri’s five year limitation period for actions to еnforce a written contract, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 516.120, should apply.
. Pevely also argues that the dispute should have never gone to arbitration becаuse of the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Article X of the parties' collective bargaining agreement prоvides that all disputes will be submitted to arbitration before the Joint Adjustment Board of the Sheet Metal Industry. Given the NLRB’s deference to arbitration, these actions were properly in arbitration and are not under the exclusive jurisdiction of the NLRB.