Sheet Metal Workers Intl Assn v. Maximum Air Flow Co.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:07-cv-02912-CWH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999214229].. [12-1981]

Appeal: 12-1981

Doc: 35

Filed: 10/09/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1981

SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Local 399,
AFL-CIO,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES L. MCLEMORE, d/b/a Maximum Air Flow,
Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (2:07-cv-02912-CWH)

Submitted:

September 9, 2013

Decided:

October 9, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished

per curiam opinion.

Christopher W. Johnson, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, L.L.P.,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Michael T. Anderson,
Arlus J. Stephens, MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1981

Doc: 35

Filed: 10/09/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Maximum Air Flow Co. appeals the district court’s order
enforcing

an

interest-arbitration

award

and

a

grievance-

arbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Workers’ Association
International, Local 399, AFL-CIO (“Sheet Metal Workers’”). We
affirm.
Sheet

Metal

Workers’

represents

sheet

metal

is

an

workers

agent
in

the

and

local

union

collective

that

bargaining

process. Maximum Air Flow is a private company located in South
Carolina

that

handles

sheet

metal

ducting

for

heating

and

ventilation systems. Sheet Metal Workers’ and Maximum Air Flow
were parties to several pre-hire agreements prior to the one at
issue here. This case arises out of the third pre-hire agreement
(“Agreement”).

The

Agreement

contained

a

mandatory

dispute

resolution process for grievances of either party, requiring the
parties to participate in the National Joint Adjustment Board’s
(“NJAB”) arbitration procedure. The Agreement also contained an
interest-arbitration

clause,

which

established

that

if

negotiations for a renewal of the Agreement came to a deadlock,
the parties were to submit the issue to the NJAB for a binding
decision on the matter.
In May 2006, Sheet Metal Workers’ notified Maximum Air Flow
that it wanted to renew the Agreement. After the parties were
unable to reach a new agreement, Sheet Metal Workers’ submitted
2

Appeal: 12-1981

Doc: 35

Filed: 10/09/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

the unresolved negotiations to the NJAB. The NJAB ultimately
ordered

the

arbitration

parties
award,

to
which

execute
was

an

to

agreement,

be

the

negotiated

interest-

by

the

area

contractor group and Sheet Metal Workers’.
Maximum

Air

Flow

refused

to

comply

with

the

interest-

arbitration agreement, prompting Sheet Metal Workers’ to file a
grievance with the NJAB. The NJAB thereafter issued a grievancearbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Workers’, awarding
$341,915.00 in damages and an additional $47,589.00 to be paid
to the Local 399 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee.
Sheet Metal Workers’ brought the underlying action pursuant
to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29
U.S.C. § 185, seeking judicial confirmation and enforcement of
the

two

arbitration

Maximum

Air

Flow

awards,

responded

plus
by

costs

moving

and

to

attorney’s

vacate

both

fees.

awards.

Sheet Metal Workers’ contended that the statute of limitations
precluded Maximum Air Flow from vacating the awards.
The

district

court,

after

a

hearing,

agreed

with

Sheet

Metal Workers’ that the statute of limitations barred Maximum
Air Flow’s challenge. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local
399,

AFL-CIO

v.

Maximum

Air

Flow

Co.,

877

F.

Supp.

2d

392

(D.S.C. 2012). Specifically, the district court held the dispute
was

a

labor

management

dispute

and

thus

the

LMRA

provided

jurisdiction; however, the LMRA does not provide a statute of
3

Appeal: 12-1981

Doc: 35

Filed: 10/09/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

limitations period for moving to vacate an arbitration award.
See, e.g., Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Cataneo Inc.,
990 F.2d 794, 799 (4th Cir. 1993). “To fill this void, courts
must look to the most analogous state statute.” Id. The district
court found South Carolina’s ninety-day statute of limitations,
S.C.

Code

vacate

an

Ann.

§

15-48-130(b),

arbitration

award,

which

to

be

applies

the

most

to

motions

analogous

to

state

statute. See Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 877 F. Supp. 2d
at 398. The district court relied on similar cases from this
court

that

borrowed

the

arbitration

statutes

when

statute
the

of

limitations

dispute

involved

from

state

vacating

an

arbitration award. See id. at 397–98 & n.5. The district court
found Maximum Air Flow had not challenged either arbitration
award within the appropriate ninety-day period, and thus the
statute of limitations barred vacating these awards. See id. at
398.
Maximum Air Flow now appeals, arguing the district court
erred

in

applying

South

Carolina’s

ninety-day

statute

of

limitations because the statute excludes direct application to
collective

bargaining

disputes.

The

issue

of

the

applicable

statute of limitations is a legal matter, which we review de
novo. See McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127,
129 (4th Cir. 1994).

4

Appeal: 12-1981

Doc: 35

Having

Filed: 10/09/2013

reviewed

the

Pg: 5 of 5

parties’

submissions,

the

district

court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially
on

the

reasoning

of

the

district

court’s

order.

Sheet

Metal

Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 877 F. Supp. 2d 392. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

5