United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 653 v. Fresh Seasons Market, LLC , 706 F. App'x 335 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 16-4015
    ___________________________
    United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 653
    lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Fresh Seasons Market, LLC; Fresh Seasons Market Victoria, LLC
    lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellants
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis
    ____________
    Submitted: October 18, 2017
    Filed: December 11, 2017
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before SMITH, Chief Judge, GRUENDER and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 653 (“the Union”) brought this
    action to compel Fresh Seasons Market, LLC and Fresh Seasons Market Victoria,
    LLC (collectively, “Fresh Seasons”) to arbitrate a contractual grievance over pay
    pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The district court1 granted
    summary judgment to the Union and ordered Fresh Seasons to arbitrate. UFCW,
    Local 653 v. Fresh Seasons Market, LLC, 
    214 F. Supp. 3d 755
    , 756 (D. Minn. 2016).
    Fresh Seasons timely appeals and argues that the Union’s action to compel arbitration
    is barred by the six-month statute of limitations. See 
    29 U.S.C. § 160
    (b).
    Along with other circuit courts, we have held that “[a] cause of action to
    compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement accrues when one party
    clearly articulates its refusal to arbitrate the dispute.” Bass v. City of Sioux Falls, 
    232 F.3d 615
    , 617-18 (8th Cir. 1999); see also United Steel Workers Int’l Union v. Cont’l
    Tire N. Am., 
    568 F.3d 158
    , 162 (4th Cir. 2009); Aluminum, Brick & Glassworkers
    Int’l Union Local 674 v. A.P. Green Refractories, Inc., 
    895 F.2d 1053
    , 1055 (5th Cir.
    1990) (collecting cases from several other circuits). Fresh Seasons rejected the
    Union’s demand for arbitration on June 24, 2015, and the Union filed its suit to
    compel arbitration on October 21, 2015. Under the Bass rule, the Union’s action was
    therefore within the statute of limitations.
    However, Fresh Seasons argues that this general rule should apply only when
    the demand for arbitration is timely under the applicable CBA. If the demand for
    arbitration is untimely under the terms of the CBA, Fresh Seasons suggests, the
    statute of limitations should begin to run on the last day on which a party could have
    made a timely demand. In support of its argument, Fresh Seasons points to several
    cases in which we have held that a “cause of action to compel arbitration ‘accrues
    when the grievance procedure is exhausted or otherwise breaks down to the
    employee’s disadvantage,’ which is, at the latest, the last date when arbitration could
    have been requested.” United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum, & Plastic Workers of Am.
    Local 164 v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 
    104 F.3d 181
    , 184 (8th Cir. 1997)
    1
    The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota.
    -2-
    (quoting Cook v. Columbian Chemicals Co., 
    997 F.2d 1239
    , 1241 (8th Cir. 1993)).
    Fresh Seasons suggests that we combine Bass’s clear-refusal-to-arbitrate standard
    with United Rubber’s last-date-for-arbitration approach. Under this proposed
    synthesized rule, an employer’s failure to arbitrate within the applicable deadline
    under the CBA would constitute a clear refusal to arbitrate. Fresh Seasons maintains
    that the Union’s request for arbitration was untimely under the CBA and that this
    action is therefore barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to the synthesized rule.
    But Fresh Seasons’s synthesized rule would require courts to interpret a CBA
    for the sake of determining whether an action is timely under the statute of
    limitations. According to the Supreme Court, such questions are better left to
    arbitrators. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 
    376 U.S. 543
    , 557-59 (1964).
    As the district court explained, we looked to the underlying CBA in United Rubber
    and Cook only because those cases lacked a clear refusal to arbitrate from which we
    could determine when the statute of limitations began to run. 214 F. Supp. 3d at 759-
    60. In other words, the unique nature of those cases precluded use of Bass’s general
    rule.
    For these reasons and the reasons further explained in the district court’s
    thorough and well-reasoned decision, we therefore decline to depart from the general
    rule that a cause of action to compel arbitration under a CBA accrues when one party
    clearly articulates its refusal to arbitrate the dispute. The judgment is affirmed. See
    8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -3-