Peabody Holding Company v. United Mine Workers of America
Filing
PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00458-LMB-IDD. [999769852]. [14-2032]
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 1 of 19
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2032
PEABODY HOLDING COMPANY, LLC, Delaware Limited
Company; BLACK BEAUTY COAL COMPANY, LLC, now
Peabody Midwest Mining, LLC, Indiana Limited
Company,
Liability
known as
Liability
Plaintiffs − Appellants,
v.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF
Unincorporated Association,
AMERICA,
INTERNATIONAL
UNION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:13-cv-00458-LMB-IDD)
Argued:
January 27, 2016
Decided:
March 8, 2016
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by published opinion.
Judge Wilkinson
wrote the opinion, in which Judge Shedd and Judge Agee joined.
ARGUED: John R. Woodrum, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellants.
Arthur
Traynor, III, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Triangle,
Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: W. Gregory Mott, Zachary S.
Stinson, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants. Diana Migliaccio Bardes, John
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 2 of 19
Robert Mooney, MOONEY, GREEN, SAINDON, MURPHY & WELCH, P.C.,
Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
2
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 3 of 19
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
In
this
circumstances
case
we
decide
when
should
courts
must
review
a
and
labor
under
what
arbitrator’s
decision. For the reasons given below, we hold that judicial
involvement in the labor dispute in this case was premature.
Under the complete arbitration rule, the arbitrator should have
been given the opportunity to resolve both the liability and
remedial phases of the dispute between the Companies and the
Union before it moved to federal court. We therefore vacate the
district court’s order confirming the merits of the arbitrator’s
liability decision and direct that court to return the dispute
to the arbitrator to allow him to rule on the remedial issues
and otherwise complete the arbitration task.
I.
The dispute in this case arises out of a 2007 Memorandum of
Understanding
Regarding
Job
Opportunities
(the
“Jobs
MOU”)
signed by the United Mine Workers of America (the “Union”) and
Peabody
Coal
Company
(“Peabody
Coal”)
as
part
of
a
wider
collective bargaining agreement. Peabody Coal signed the Jobs
MOU on behalf of itself and as a limited agent of its corporate
parent, Peabody Holding Company (“Peabody Holding”), and several
of Peabody Holding’s other subsidiaries, including Black Beauty
Coal Company (“Black Beauty”). The principal purpose of the Jobs
MOU was to require non-unionized companies within the Peabody
3
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 4 of 19
corporate family to give preferential hiring treatment to coal
miners who were either working for or laid off by Peabody Coal.
An arbitration clause in the Jobs MOU provided that a “Jobs
Monitor” was to resolve any disputes involving the Jobs MOU, and
that his decisions would be “final and binding on all parties”
to the dispute. J.A. 79. The Jobs MOU was to expire on December
31, 2011.
Later
in
2007,
Peabody
Energy
Corporation
(“Peabody
Energy”), the corporate parent of Peabody Holding and thus the
ultimate parent of Peabody Coal and Black Beauty, initiated a
spinoff of some of its mining operations to form a new entity
called Patriot Coal Corporation (“Patriot”). In conjunction with
the spinoff, Peabody Coal became part of Patriot. All but one of
the Peabody Holding subsidiaries on whose behalf Peabody Coal
had signed the Jobs MOU also became part of Patriot. The one
exception was Black Beauty, which, along with Peabody Holding
itself,
was
spinoff,
retained
Peabody
by
Coal
Peabody
no
Energy.
longer
Thus,
shared
following
any
the
corporate
relationship with Peabody Holding or Black Beauty.
In 2008, Black Beauty hired private mine operator United
Minerals Company (“United Minerals”) to conduct surface mining
on Black Beauty’s property. Black Beauty and United Minerals
were
non-unionized.
United
Minerals
had
no
corporate
relationship with Peabody Coal and was thus not subject to the
4
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 5 of 19
Jobs MOU. Shortly after Black Beauty began its work with United
Minerals, the Union sent a letter to Peabody Energy and Peabody
Holding stating that Peabody Holding and Black Beauty were still
bound
by
the
Jobs
MOU’s
preferential
hiring
requirements.
Peabody Holding disagreed. It took the view that the spinoff of
Peabody Coal from the rest of the Peabody corporate family ended
any
obligation
that
Peabody
Holding
or
Black
Beauty
(the
“Companies”) had under the Jobs MOU. Because the Union and the
Companies could not resolve this dispute among themselves, the
Union submitted the dispute to the Jobs Monitor.
The Companies initially argued that the dispute was not
even
arbitrable
under
the
Jobs
MOU’s
arbitration
clause.
It
ultimately took a decision from this Court to confirm that the
dispute was in fact arbitrable. Peabody Holding Co. v. United
Mine Workers, 665 F.3d 96, 103 (4th Cir. 2012). The Union and
the Companies thus returned to arbitration to argue the merits
of the dispute before the Jobs Monitor.
When
the
Union
and
the
Companies
returned
to
the
Jobs
Monitor they decided to bifurcate the dispute. As recounted by
the Jobs Monitor in his written decision, the parties asked him
to “treat[] in this proceeding solely the question of whether
[Peabody Holding] and Black Beauty continued to be bound by the
[Jobs] MOU after the . . . spinoff.” J.A. 57. The Jobs Monitor
noted
further
that
“[i]f
that
5
question
is
resolved
in
the
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 6 of 19
Union’s favor, and the parties cannot agree on an appropriate
remedy for the [Peabody Holding]/Black Beauty refusal to abide
by
the
[Jobs]
MOU,
resolution
of
the
remedy
issue
will
Union
and
be
submitted to the Jobs Monitor.” J.A. 57.
After
receiving
arguments
from
both
the
the
Companies, the Jobs Monitor ruled that the Jobs MOU remained in
force
even
though
relationship
Monitor
with
Peabody
then
Coal
made
Peabody
a
no
Holding
few
longer
or
related
had
Black
any
Beauty.
rulings,
corporate
The
including
Jobs
that
continued enforcement of the Jobs MOU would not run afoul of the
National
Labor
Relations
Act
(“NLRA”).
The
Jobs
Monitor,
however, deferred his decision on one notable issue. During the
proceedings, the Companies had argued that Black Beauty’s work
with United Minerals was actually exempt from the Jobs MOU by
virtue of the fact that Black Beauty had signed its contract
with United Minerals before it became bound by the Jobs MOU. The
Union responded by noting that even if Black Beauty’s work with
United Minerals was exempt, Black Beauty or Peabody Holding may
have contracted for other jobs that should have been covered by
the Jobs MOU. The Jobs Monitor determined that he would defer
answering
this
question
“until
the
remedy
stage
of
these
proceedings.” J.A. 70. At the conclusion of his decision, the
Jobs Monitor stated that he would “retain jurisdiction over this
6
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 7 of 19
matter for the limited purpose of resolving any remedial issues
on which the parties cannot agree.” J.A. 70.
Unhappy that the Jobs Monitor had found them subject to
liability under the Jobs MOU, the Companies sought to vacate the
Jobs Monitor’s decision by filing a declaratory judgment action
in
the
Eastern
District
of
Virginia.
The
Union
filed
a
counterclaim to enforce the decision. The Union also moved to
dismiss the Companies’ complaint, arguing that judicial review
of the Jobs Monitor’s decision was not proper until arbitration
before the Jobs Monitor was complete. Both parties then filed
cross motions for summary judgment on the merits of the Jobs
Monitor’s liability decision.
The district court denied the Union’s motion to dismiss. It
first noted that there was “some disagreement” in the case law
as to the nature of the judicial review provision on which the
Companies had premised their suit -- Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Peabody
Holding Co. v. United Mine Workers, 41 F. Supp. 3d 494, 499 n.4
(E.D. Va. 2014). While some courts describe their jurisdiction
under Section 301 as limited to “review of final arbitration
awards,”
other
jurisdiction”
judicial
courts
under
application
believe
Section
of
a
Congress
301
and
prudential
practice limit review to final awards. Id.
7
conferred
“merely
rule”
“sweeping
contemplated
that
would
in
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 8 of 19
The district court ultimately decided that it did not need
to determine if any limitation on judicial review under Section
301
to
final
awards
was
jurisdictional
strictly
speaking
or
merely prudential. It simply determined that the Jobs Monitor’s
“award is final as to liability and therefore reviewable.” Id.
The district court reached this conclusion largely because the
parties
had
agreed
to
bifurcate
the
liability
and
remedial
facets of their dispute, and the Jobs Monitor’s decision had
conclusively resolved the liability facet. Id. at 500-01.
Proceeding to the merits, the district court granted the
Union’s
motion
for
summary
judgment
by
enforcing
the
Jobs
Monitor’s decision as to the Companies’ liability under the Jobs
MOU. Id. at 507. The Companies timely appealed this order. The
Union did not cross appeal the district court’s denial of its
motion
to
district
dismiss,
court’s
Companies
were
briefed
this
whether
we
and
instead
summary
sought
judgment
liable
under
the
question,
we
asked
should
even
review
order
Jobs
for
the
only
to
confirming
MOU.
After
additional
Jobs
defend
that
the
the
parties
briefing
Monitor’s
the
on
liability
decision in light of the fact that arbitration before the Jobs
Monitor was not complete. It is on this threshold question that
we now focus.
8
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 9 of 19
II.
A.
This case came to federal court by way of Section 301 of
the LMRA. Section 301 gives federal district courts jurisdiction
over “[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and
a
labor
affecting
organization
commerce
controversy
parties.”
or
29
.
representing
.
.
without
U.S.C.
without
regard
§ 185(a).
to
employees
respect
the
to
in
an
the
industry
amount
citizenship
Long-standing
of
Supreme
in
the
Court
precedent provides that a party may utilize Section 301 to seek
judicial enforcement of an arbitration award made pursuant to an
arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement. Gen.
Drivers Local Union No. 89 v. Riss & Co., 372 U.S. 517, 519
(1963)
(per
however,
it
curiam).
must
Before
determine
a
court
that
may
the
review
award
is
the
award,
“final
and
binding.” Id. In line with this directive, many courts have held
that
a
federal
district
court
should
not
review
a
labor
arbitrator’s decision under Section 301 until the arbitrator has
ruled on both liability and remedies -- a procedural requirement
commonly referred to as the complete arbitration rule. E.g.,
Local 36, Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n v. Pevely Sheet Metal
Co., 951 F.2d 947, 949-50 (8th Cir. 1992); Union Switch & Signal
Div. Am. Standard Inc. v. United Elec. Workers, Local 610, 900
F.2d 608, 612-14 (3d Cir. 1990); Millmen Local 550, United Bhd.
9
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 10 of 19
of Carpenters v. Wells Exterior Trim, 828 F.2d 1373, 1375-76
(9th Cir. 1987).
As
the
district
court
noted,
there
appears
to
be
some
uncertainty as to the nature of the complete arbitration rule.
Some decisions have described the complete arbitration rule as a
restriction of a federal court’s jurisdiction under Section 301.
Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co. v. Sys. Council U-2, Int'l Bhd. of
Elec.
Workers,
decisions
have
703
F.2d
noted
68,
70
Section
(3d
301’s
Cir.
broad
1983).
But
language,
other
and
have
accordingly taken the complete arbitration rule to be only a
prudential
limitation
on
judicial
involvement
in
a
labor
arbitration. Union Switch, 900 F.2d at 612-14.
Both in briefing and during argument, the Companies claimed
and the Union agreed that the complete arbitration rule does not
concern federal subject matter jurisdiction in the strict sense.
We
agree
§ 1291,
with
the
the
parties.
statute
Unlike,
conferring
for
appellate
instance,
28
jurisdiction
U.S.C.
on
the
federal circuit courts of appeals, Section 301 itself does not
contain language limiting review to a “final decision” or some
other similarly definitive event. Its jurisdictional grant is
couched in much broader terms. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).
Indeed,
even
courts
that
have
referred
to
the
complete
arbitration rule in jurisdictional terms appear to acknowledge
that
it
is
not
a
hard
and
fast
10
jurisdictional
limitation,
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
because
Filed: 03/08/2016
those
courts
have
Pg: 11 of 19
noted
exceptions
to
the
rule
in
“extreme cases.” Millmen Local 550, 828 F.2d at 1377. But of
course there can be no exception from the fact that federal
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and thus do not have
authority
to
resolve
a
dispute
unless
that
authority
has
specifically been given to them. Home Buyers Warranty Corp. v.
Hanna, 750 F.3d 427, 432 (4th Cir. 2014). All of this is to say
that the complete arbitration rule necessarily constitutes only
a prudential limitation on a court’s authority to review a labor
arbitrator’s decision.
Although
only
prudential,
the
complete
arbitration
rule
nonetheless draws from the same well of policy rationales as its
strictly
jurisdictional
relatives.
As
noted,
under
28
U.S.C.
§ 1291, a district court generally must have entered a final
judgment or order before a court of appeals can take the case.
Goode v. Cent. Va. Legal Aid Soc'y, Inc., 807 F.3d 619, 623 (4th
Cir.
2015).
This
requirement
“preserves
judicial
economy
by
ensuring that a district court maintains authority over a case
until it issues a final and appealable order, thus preventing
piecemeal litigation and repeated appeals.” Id. at 625.
The
complete
arbitration
rule
promotes
similar
ends.
It
ensures that courts will not become incessantly dragooned into
deciding narrow questions that form only a small part of a wider
dispute otherwise entrusted to arbitration. And it mitigates the
11
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 12 of 19
possibility of one party using an open courthouse door to delay
the arbitration. See Union Switch, 900 F.2d at 611. Finally, it
makes good sense, when working within a hierarchical system, to
give the decision maker at each level a full and fair say as to
the whole problem before passing the case on to the next stage
of
review.
Internal
appeals
in
the
state
and
federal
courts
generally abide by this principle, and there is no reason that
it should not operate as a presumptive maxim in this context as
well. With this background in mind, we examine why the facts in
this case counsel us to adhere to the complete arbitration rule
and withhold judicial involvement until the arbitration before
the Jobs Monitor is complete.
B.
This case calls for a straightforward application of the
complete arbitration rule. As noted, the complete arbitration
rule
provides
that
a
federal
court
asked
to
review
an
arbitrator’s decision should refrain from doing so until the
arbitrator has decided all facets of the dispute. Savers Prop. &
Cas. Ins. Co. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 748 F.3d 708, 719
(6th
Cir.
2014).
Accordingly,
when
a
labor
arbitrator
first
decides liability questions and reserves jurisdiction to decide
remedial
common,
questions
see
Union
at
a
later
Switch,
900
time,
F.2d
as
at
appears
611,
a
to
be
quite
federal
court
should generally withhold review of the arbitrator’s liability
12
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 13 of 19
decision until the arbitrator has had the opportunity to rule on
the remedial questions as well. See McKinney Restoration Co. v.
Ill. Dist. Council No. 1 of Int’l Union of Bricklayers, 392 F.3d
867, 872 (7th Cir. 2004); Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 703 F.2d
at 70.
Here the Jobs Monitor issued a decision as to the liability
phase of the parties’ dispute, but retained jurisdiction over
the remedies phase should the Union and the Companies fail to
agree on a remedy on their own. J.A. 69-70. Because the Jobs
Monitor
was
not
finished
with
the
dispute,
the
complete
arbitration rule counsels that we refrain from stepping in at
this juncture. If this dispute is destined to eventually make
its way to court, it is far better for it to come in one whole
piece than in dribs and drabs.
The
complete
Companies
argue,
arbitration
straightforward,
and
however,
rule
offer
to
reasons
that
this
application
case
why
we
of
the
not
so
review
the
is
should
merits of the Jobs Monitor’s liability decision. First among
those
reasons
bifurcate
is
their
proceedings.
that
dispute
The
the
Companies
into
Companies
and
separate
the
Union
liability
highlight
chose
and
decisions
to
remedial
permitting
judicial review of a labor arbitrator’s liability decision when
the
parties
decide
beforehand
to
deal
separately
with
the
liability and remedial aspects of their dispute. Smart v. Int'l
13
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 14 of 19
Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 702, 315 F.3d 721, 726 (7th Cir.
2002); Providence Journal Co. v. Providence Newspaper Guild, 271
F.3d 16, 19-20 (1st Cir. 2001).
It
is
true
that
the
parties
agreed
to
bifurcate
their
dispute into two proceedings, one to address liability, and one
to
address
remedies,
if
necessary.
Given
the
nature
of
the
dispute, this seems like a sensible approach. It is unsurprising
that the parties could not find common ground on the question of
whether the Jobs MOU survived the spinoff -- this is a zero sum
liability question on which neither party would want to give in.
No
doubt,
though,
the
parties
at
least
contemplated
the
possibility of some compromise as to the remedies question once
they received a definitive answer as to liability. One of the
many
virtues
dispute
of
arbitration
resolution
process
is
that
in
a
parties
manner
can
that
segment
the
enhances
the
prospects for settlement.
That
the
parties
agreed
to
bifurcate
their
arbitration
proceedings does not change the fact that they also agreed to
submit the entire dispute -- both the liability and remedies
questions -- to arbitration. The arbitration clause in the Jobs
MOU
provides
that
“[a]ny
dispute
alleging
a
breach
of
th[e]
[Jobs] MOU” may be submitted to the Jobs Monitor for resolution.
J.A.
79.
And
it
is
clear
from
the
Jobs
Monitor’s
written
decision that the “matter” given to him by the parties included
14
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 15 of 19
both the liability and remedial facets of the dispute. J.A. 57.
For understandable reasons, the parties asked the Jobs Monitor
to deal with each question in a separate “proceeding.” J.A. 57.
That is, the parties gave the Jobs Monitor one large task, and
then asked him to deal with that task in a specific, segmented
manner. There is nothing unjust about a decision to withhold
review until the arbitrator has completed both segments of the
whole task that was given to him.
The
merits
Companies
because
also
it
argue
would
be
that
more
we
should
efficient
proceed
to
have
to
the
judicial
review now rather than later. The Companies essentially contend
that it would be a waste of resources to force the parties to
proceed through the remedial phase of the arbitration if the
Companies’
position
on
the
liability
question
is
eventually
determined by a court to be correct. This argument sweeps too
broadly.
It
could
in
principle
be
applied
to
all
but
the
simplest cases, because it could always be claimed that judicial
review
of
an
arbitrator’s
liability
ruling
might
potentially
save the parties and the arbitrator remedial time. In fact, the
Companies’ argument could even be used to support one party’s
right to claim immediate recourse to court in disputes where
there is no semblance of bifurcation.
Moreover, the Companies’ efficiency argument overlooks the
widely
held
view
that
the
sort
15
of
interlocutory
appeal
the
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Companies
Filed: 03/08/2016
are
requesting
Pg: 16 of 19
can,
if
not
circumscribed,
become
“inherently ‘disruptive, time-consuming, and expensive.’” PradoSteiman ex rel. Prado v. Bush, 221 F.3d 1266, 1276 (11th Cir.
2000) (quoting Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d
288,
294
(1st
Cir.
2000)).
One
notable
reason
interlocutory
appeals tend to reduce rather than promote efficiency is that
they often “require[] the appellate courts to consider issues
that
may
be
rendered
moot
if
the
appealing
party
ultimately
prevails in or settles the case.” Id.
Were we to review the merits of the liability decision now,
we
may
end
up
considering
an
issue
later
rendered
moot.
As
noted, the Jobs Monitor has yet to decide if Black Beauty’s work
with United Minerals is exempt from the Jobs MOU. And as far as
we are aware, Black Beauty’s work with United Minerals is the
only potential breach of the Jobs MOU that the Union has thus
far identified. If, therefore, the Jobs Monitor finds that Black
Beauty’s work with United Minerals is exempt, and if the Union
does not identify other potential breaches of the Jobs MOU, then
our review of the liability decision will have had no practical
impact on the parties’ dispute. And no matter what the Jobs
Monitor might do during the remedial phase, settlement is always
a
possibility.
Dollars
and
cents
are
fertile
subjects
for
compromise. Having lost on the liability question, the Companies
16
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 17 of 19
may decide to negotiate an alternative jobs agreement or reach
some other monetary agreement with the Union.
In addition, the Companies’ efficiency argument is undercut
by the particularized nature of this dispute. It is not as if a
court ruling on the liability question now would settle a common
issue
for
different
multiple
cases
arbitrators.
proceeding
The
liability
simultaneously
question
is
before
instead
of
concern only to Peabody Holding and Black Beauty.
And even if a court ruling at this juncture would in some
way advance systemic efficiency, we would hesitate to make such
a ruling in light of the fact that the Jobs Monitor’s decision
on the liability question will not have any real-world effect
until
either
corresponding
the
parties
remedy.
One
or
the
Jobs
rationale
Monitor
that
has
decide
been
on
given
a
for
allowing a court to review an arbitrator’s liability decision in
a
bifurcated
“expressly
another
arbitration
intended
to
proceeding.
Charterers
Inc.,
have
Trade
931
is
F.2d
&
that
the
immediate
Transp.,
191,
195
liability
collateral
Inc.
(2d
v.
Cir.
decision
was
effects”
Nat.
1991).
in
Petroleum
But
the
Companies have identified no similar adverse consequences here.
That the Jobs Monitor’s decision has no such immediate impact
bolsters our decision to withhold judicial review in this case.
Finally,
the
Companies’
whole
line
of
argument
for
immediate judicial review runs awkwardly into a first principle
17
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 18 of 19
of arbitration: that “arbitration is a matter of contract.” Am.
Exp. Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304, 2309 (2013).
Because
arbitration
is
contractual
in
nature,
parties
to
an
arbitration agreement are generally free to fashion the arbitral
process to best suit their needs. See Vulcan Chem. Techs., Inc.
v. Barker, 297 F.3d 332, 340 (4th Cir. 2002). For instance, they
may
agree
among
arbitration,
themselves
which
law
which
the
questions
arbitrator
will
will
apply
go
in
to
the
arbitration, and which procedural rules the arbitrator will use
to
manage
the
arbitration.
The
agreement
fashioned
by
the
parties deserves judicial respect. Here, we have done nothing
more or less than honor the arbitral ground rules the Companies
and the Union have established for themselves.
III.
Arbitration plays a critical role in our nation’s system of
labor
relations.
management
can
By
providing
meet
to
a
peaceably
forum
in
resolve
which
their
labor
and
differences,
labor arbitration serves as a “substitute to industrial strife.”
Gateway
Coal
Co.
v.
United
Mine
Workers,
414
U.S.
368,
378
(1974) (quoting United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co.,
363 U.S. 574, 578 (1960)). For this reason, Congress has adopted
a
“federal
policy
favoring
arbitration
of
labor
disputes.”
Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 299
(2010) (quoting Gateway Coal Co. 414 U.S. at 377). The Companies
18
Appeal: 14-2032
Doc: 43
Filed: 03/08/2016
Pg: 19 of 19
have given us no reason to disrespect the important place that
labor
arbitration
occupies
in
our
economy
by
intervening
prematurely and hearing this dispute before the arbitrator has
completed
his
job.
We
therefore
vacate
the
district
court’s
ruling and direct that court to remand this case to the Jobs
Monitor for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED
19
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?