McKinney Restoration, Co. v. Illinois District Council No. 1 of the International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers , 392 F.3d 867 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 03-3253
    MCKINNEY RESTORATION, CO., INC., MCKINNEY
    CONSTRUCTION, MC CONSTRUCTION, et al.,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    ILLINOIS DISTRICT COUNCIL NO. 1 OF THE
    INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BRICKLAYERS
    AND ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS, AFL-CIO and
    BRICKLAYERS UNION LOCAL NO. 21, Affiliated
    with the Illinois Dist. Council No. 1 of the Int’l
    Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    ____________
    Appeal from the United States District Court for
    the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
    No. 01 C 1514—Blanche M. Manning, Judge.
    ____________
    ARGUED JUNE 10, 2004—DECIDED DECEMBER 15, 2004
    ____________
    Before CUDAHY, RIPPLE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
    ROVNER, Circuit Judge. This appeal concerns two arbi-
    tration awards entered as a result of a dispute between:
    Illinois District Council No. 1 of the International Union of
    Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, AFL-CIO, and its
    2                                                No. 03-3253
    affiliated Local 21 (“Union”); and McKinney Restoration
    Co., Inc., McKinney Construction, MC Construction, and
    Lee McKinney (collectively “Employer”). The Employer filed
    suit in the district court to vacate two labor arbitration
    awards entered in favor of the Union, and the Union coun-
    terclaimed seeking enforcement of those awards. Because
    the Employer’s challenge to the first arbitration award was
    untimely, the district court granted the Union’s motion for
    partial summary judgment enforcing the first award based
    on the statute of limitations. The court subsequently granted
    the parties’ joint motion for direction of entry of final judg-
    ment pursuant to Rule 54(b), and the Employer appealed.
    The sole issue before this court on appeal is whether the
    Employer’s action to vacate the first arbitration award was
    filed outside the statute of limitations.
    The Employer argues that the first arbitration left open
    issues that were decided in the second award, and therefore
    that it was not a final appealable decision until after the
    second arbitration award. Accordingly, it argues that the
    statute of limitations for both awards commenced only after
    the second arbitration award was entered, and that the
    action is thus timely as to both awards. The history of the
    arbitration is therefore critical to this case.
    McKinney Restoration is a construction contracting bus-
    iness that was formerly incorporated, and Lee McKinney
    was the president and sole shareholder. McKinney
    Construction and MC Construction are unincorporated busi-
    nesses in the construction contracting industry and are owned
    and operated by Lee McKinney. In the first arbitration, the
    Union filed a grievance against the Employer, alleging vio-
    lations of the collective bargaining agreement. According to
    that collective bargaining agreement, all disputes had to be
    submitted initially to the joint arbitration board (“JAB”).
    The JAB conducted a hearing on that grievance on Decem-
    ber 1, 1999,and reconvened on March 8, 2000, to hear
    additional evidence. Notice of the hearing was provided to
    No. 03-3253                                                 3
    Lee McKinney as well as to all three of the McKinney
    business entities, and Lee McKinney and an attorney ap-
    peared at the hearing on behalf of the those three business
    entities. Following those hearings, the JAB issued a written
    decision. It found that McKinney Restoration was the only
    signatory to the collective bargaining agreement, but that
    McKinney Restoration, McKinney Construction, and MC
    Construction were effectively the same business and there-
    fore that all three were bound to the terms of the agree-
    ment. The JAB further determined that those businesses
    had performed more than 2,000 hours of bargaining unit
    work in violation of the agreement, and it ordered them to
    pay $77,576.24 in damages. A written copy of the decision
    was sent to Lee McKinney, and receipt of that decision was
    acknowledged on May 1, 2000. Accordingly, this decision is
    known as the May award.
    The three business entities failed to comply with that
    May award, however, resulting in a second grievance by the
    Union against the Employer. In a letter dated October 13,
    2000, the Union informed the Employer of the grievance
    and informed it that a hearing would be held before the
    JAB to consider “claims related to liability for and com-
    pliance with” the May decision. The JAB conducted that
    hearing on October 25, 2000, and held that McKinney was
    personally bound by the collective bargaining agreement
    and therefore was jointly liable for the obligations under the
    May award. Accordingly, the JAB ruled that a bond Lee
    McKinney had previously posted could be applied towards
    satisfaction of that obligation. Lee McKinney received a
    copy of that award in December 2000, which is thereby
    termed the “December award.”
    On March 2, 2001, the Employer filed an action in the
    district court seeking to vacate both the May and December
    awards pursuant to the Labor-Management Relations Act
    (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185. The Union countersued seeking en-
    forcement of the awards. The district court bifurcated the
    4                                               No. 03-3253
    proceedings, addressing first whether the action to vacate
    the May award was barred by the statute of limitations.
    The court held that it was barred by the limitations period,
    and the Employer appealed.
    I.
    It is well-settled law in this circuit that “the failure to
    challenge an arbitration award within the applicable limi-
    tations period renders the award final.” Int’l Union of
    Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Centor Con-
    tractors, Inc., 
    831 F.2d 1309
    , 1311 (7th Cir. 1987); Sullivan
    v. Gilchrist, 
    87 F.3d 867
    , 871 (7th Cir. 1996); Sullivan v.
    Lemoncello, 
    36 F.3d 676
    , 681 (7th Cir. 1994). All parties
    agree that the appropriate limitations period in this case is
    90 days, and our cases are in accord. 
    Centor, 831 F.2d at 1311
    (applicable limitations period to vacate an arbitration
    award in Illinois is 90 days); 
    Gilchrist, 87 F.3d at 870
    (same); 
    Lemoncello, 36 F.3d at 681
    (same). That would seem
    to end the case because the suit to vacate the May award
    was filed well beyond that 90-day period. The Employer,
    however, seeks to avoid that consequence by contending
    that the May award was not in fact a final decision by the
    JAB because the issue of McKinney’s personal liability was
    before the JAB at the initial hearing and was not decided
    until the December award. Accordingly, the Employer
    maintains that the May and December awards were
    actually one decision by the JAB and therefore the limita-
    tions period did not begin to run until the December award
    was issued. That argument is both factually and legally
    insupportable.
    A.
    The argument is factually flawed because there is no evi-
    dence whatsoever that Lee McKinney’s personal liability
    No. 03-3253                                                   5
    was before the JAB for the hearings culminating in the May
    award. The Employer points to a compendium of innocuous
    facts to support its position. First, it notes that in a Novem-
    ber 12, 1999, letter apprising the Employer of the December
    hearing for the first arbitration, the Union stated:
    Local 21 believes that the relationship among each of
    the named business entities and the relationship of Mr.
    McKinney to those entities is such that each of the
    named entities and Mr. McKinney personally are liable
    for the obligations imposed by the labor contract be-
    tween District Council No. 1 and McKinney Restoration
    Co.
    The Employer contends that this letter establishes that the
    issue of Lee McKinney’s personal liability was before the
    JAB prior to the May award. In addition, the Employer
    points out that each letter regarding the hearings was
    addressed to Lee McKinney as well as the three business
    entities. That is the only evidence that Lee McKinney iden-
    tifies indicating that his personal liability was before the
    JAB at the first arbitration.
    In addition, Lee McKinney asserts that certain aspects of
    the October hearing for the second arbitration indicate that
    it was a continuation of the first arbitration. Specifically, he
    notes that the two JAB decisions were heard and authored
    by the same JAB panel and that the October 13, 2000, letter
    regarding the second arbitration provided: “Although the
    claim raised by the Union has to do with compliance, you
    will be given an opportunity if you wish to request that the
    Joint Arbitration Board consider any arguments or evidence
    you wish to present.” Although the connection is far from
    self-evident, the Employer contends that this statement
    demonstrates that the evidence at the October hearing “was
    not limited to the personal liability of McKinney which had
    not been addressed or decided at the prior Hearing . . . [but
    6                                                No. 03-3253
    rather] that the purpose of the Hearing was to reopen the
    prior Hearing for whatever the parties wanted to dis-
    cuss. . . .”
    Those arguments by the Employer fall far short of estab-
    lishing that the May and December awards were actually
    one comprehensive decision by the JAB. In fact, the record
    demonstrates that the opposite is true. Although the
    November 12 letter preceding the hearings for the first arbi-
    tration evidenced the Union’s belief that Lee McKinney
    should be held personally liable, there is absolutely no evi-
    dence that his personal liability was presented to the JAB.
    The JAB determined the liability of the three business en-
    tities and never discussed Lee McKinley’s liability, nor did
    it indicate that his personal liability had ever been raised.
    In fact, in the May award, the JAB identifies the parties
    notified of the hearing and the representatives present,
    in each case mentioning only the three business entities.
    For instance, the JAB records that the “contractor” was
    notified of the hearing, and then defines contractor as the
    three business entities. The JAB further identifies the “[r]ep-
    resentative present for McKinney Restoration Co., Inc.,
    McKinney Construction, and MC Construction” as Lee
    McKinney and Gerard Smetana. At no time is Lee McKinney
    identified as a party, and no representative of his interests
    is identified. This is in contrast to the December award,
    which reflects that Lee McKinney as well as the three
    business entities were notified of the hearing, and identifies
    Lee McKinney and Gerard Smetana as “representative[s]
    present for McKinney Restoration Co., Inc., McKinney
    Construction, MC Construction, and Mr. Lee McKinney”
    (emphasis added). That establishes that the JAB in the first
    hearing addressed claims only against the three business
    entities, whereas claims against Lee McKinney were
    included in the second arbitration. Moreover, the JAB in its
    May award defined the matter before it as concerning the
    charges that the contractor violated the collective bar-
    No. 03-3253                                                7
    gaining agreement; as was stated, the term “contractor”
    in the decision was limited to the three business entities.
    There is, in short, absolutely no evidence that the personal
    liability of Lee McKinney was presented to the JAB, and
    therefore its decision reflected a final determination of all
    issues before it.
    The use of the same JAB panel for the second arbitration
    is unexceptional, and the openness to other issues in no way
    indicates that it was meant as a continuation of the prior
    arbitration hearings. In fact, the October 13 letter notified
    the Employer that the hearing was held to address prob-
    lems concerning compliance with the prior decision of the
    JAB. In contrast, when notifying the Employer of the
    second hearing to be conducted in the course of the first
    arbitration, the letter stated that the JAB was scheduled “to
    reconvene, to decide certain unresolved matters, from the
    December 1, 1999 Joint Arbitration Board hearing.” No
    similar language concerning unresolved matters was pre-
    sent for the second arbitration.
    B.
    In addition to its failure to comport with the facts, the
    Employer’s argument is legally incorrect as well. The case
    law in this circuit establishes that the May award was a
    final decision that commenced the running of the limita-
    tions period.
    The Employer rests its claim entirely on Ameritech
    Services, Inc. v. Local Union No. 336, IBEW, AFL-CIO, No.
    96 C 5897, 
    1997 WL 222439
    (N.D. Ill. April 30, 1997). In
    Ameritech, the district court noted that it had jurisdiction
    under § 301 of the LMRA to vacate or enforce a labor ar-
    bitration award, but held that ordinarily the arbitrator’s
    award must be final and binding before such review is un-
    dertaken. 
    Id. at 5.
    According to that court, the finality
    rule—called the “complete arbitration” rule—defined a
    8                                                No. 03-3253
    “final” arbitration award as one “intended by the arbitrator
    to be his complete determination of every issue submitted
    to him.” 
    Id., citing Anderson
    v. Norfolk and Western Ry. Co.,
    
    773 F.2d 880
    , 883 (7th Cir. 1985). Where a substantive task
    remained for the arbitrator to perform, the ruling was not
    final. Id.; see also Millmen Local 550, United Brotherhood of
    Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO v. Wells
    Exterior Trim, 
    828 F.2d 1373
    (9th Cir. 1987); Public Service
    Elec. and Gas Co. v. System Council U-2, IBEW, AFL-CIO,
    
    703 F.2d 68
    (3d Cir. 1983).
    We reached a similar conclusion in Smart v. IBEW, 
    315 F.3d 721
    (7th Cir. 2002), which was brought under both the
    LMRA and the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but in which
    we focused our discussion on the FAA provisions. See
    International Union of Operating Engineers v. Murphy Co.,
    
    82 F.3d 185
    , 188-89 (7th Cir. 1996)(citing case for the
    proposition that the FAA and the LMRA establish the same
    governing principles and that courts routinely cite decisions
    under one statute as authority for decisions under the
    other). In Smart, we addressed issues of the finality and
    ripeness of arbitration awards, holding that “[o]ne thing is
    clear, . . . if the arbitrator himself thinks he’s through with
    the case, then his award is final and appealable . . 
    ..” 315 F.3d at 725
    . That is true even if the award was incomplete
    in that the arbitrators did not complete their assignment
    but believed they had, or where the award was so poorly
    drafted that the party against whom the award is entered
    does not know how to comply with it. 
    Id. In such
    a case, the
    award is properly before the court, and the court then may
    vacate it pursuant to § 10(a)(4) of the Federal Arbitration
    Act. Id.; 9 U.S.C. § 10(a)(4)(requiring a court to vacate an
    arbitration award where “the arbitrators . . . so imperfectly
    executed [their powers] that a mutual, final, and definite
    award upon the subject matter submitted was not made”).
    In Smart, the arbitrator found liability, holding that
    Smart violated the collective bargaining agreement by fail-
    No. 03-3253                                                 9
    ing to make required contributions to the union’s welfare
    fund. The arbitrator did not, however, determine the amount
    owed the union, directing the parties to calculate the amount
    owed. 
    Id. at 724.
    Because the arbitrator believed that the
    arbitration was completed, the award was final and appeal-
    able. The Smart court noted that unlike litigation, arbitra-
    tion allows parties flexibility in dispute resolution, thus
    allowing them to proceed to arbitration solely on liability
    and leaving damages to their mutual agreement. 
    Id. at 726.
    Accordingly, the award was enforceable even though it de-
    termined only liability, not damages, because it was clear
    that the arbitrators “had finished their assignment and
    clear as well what their award required.” 
    Id. That contrasts
    with the facts present before the Ameritech
    court, in which the arbitrator had apparently not completed
    the assignment. In Ameritech, the parties agreed at the
    onset of the arbitration hearing that if a violation of the
    collective bargaining agreement was found, the arbitrator
    should not determine the remedy but should return the
    matter to the parties for them to resolve it, although the
    arbitrator was to retain jurisdiction. 
    1997 WL 222439
    at 2.
    Accordingly, when the arbitrator subsequently determined
    that a violation existed, he retained jurisdiction for “ninety
    days, or longer if the parties so require, while the parties
    attempt to fashion the appropriate remedy.” 
    Id. at 3.
    The
    parties did not attempt to fashion an appropriate remedy,
    and instead filed a suit seeking to vacate the agreement and
    a counterclaim seeking enforcement. 
    Id. The court
    held that
    the arbitration decision had all the characteristics of an
    interim order, in that neither the parties nor the arbitrator
    intended the award to be final, and the substantive task of
    determining a remedy remained to be performed, with the
    arbitrator retaining jurisdiction presumably for that
    purpose. 
    Id. at 7.
      Accordingly, where an arbitrator believes the assignment
    is completed, the award is final and appealable, and the
    10                                               No. 03-3253
    court may then vacate the award for that reason. Where the
    evidence establishes that the arbitrator does not believe the
    assignment is completed, the award is not final and ap-
    pealable.
    The present case contains none of those markers of a non-
    final order. In this case, nothing in the May award indicates
    that the JAB believed that any issues remained to be
    decided. The award determined liability and imposed a
    remedy. The JAB did not retain jurisdiction, and in fact
    stated that if the Union obtained evidence of additional
    work performed in violation of the agreement, they could
    file a new grievance and the JAB would consider awarding
    additional damages. The award further declared that if the
    contractor failed to abide by its terms and legal action was
    necessary to enforce the award, then the contractor would
    be responsible for costs, legal fees, and interest. That is the
    language of a final award disposing of all issues before the
    arbitrators, not an interim one. Accordingly, the district
    court properly held that the May award was final, thus
    commencing the statute of limitations, and that the action
    to vacate that award was untimely.
    II.
    The Employer raised a second argument in its brief, as-
    serting that if the May award is deemed to be final and
    appealable, then the counterclaim by the Union to enforce
    that award was commenced beyond the six-month statute
    of limitations for enforcement actions. The Union argues
    that the Employer is simply wrong in stating that the lim-
    itations period for enforcement actions is six months, but
    points out that the argument is waived as well because it
    was not raised in the district court. The Employer concedes
    that it failed to present this issue to the district court, but
    asserts that it is jurisdictional and therefore can be raised
    at any time. We have repeatedly held that statutes of lim-
    No. 03-3253                                               11
    itations, as opposed to true limitations on judicial power,
    are not jurisdictional. Central States, Southeast and
    Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Safeway, Inc., 
    229 F.3d 605
    , 610 (7th Cir. 2000). The Employer makes no argument
    that this is a limitation on judicial power such as 28 U.S.C.
    § 2101 or Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 (specifying
    the times in which an appeal must be filed with the Supreme
    Court and in the court of appeals respectively.) 
    Id. Instead, the
    Employer identifies this as a traditional limitations
    period, in this case arguing that it is a limitations period
    borrowed from state statutes of limitations. The limitations
    period is not jurisdictional, and the issue is waived.
    The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    ________________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—12-15-04