International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959 v. Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC

Citations: 22 F. Supp. 3d 1005; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68969; 2014 WL 2094145Docket: No. 4:13-CV-00039 JWS

Court: District Court, D. Alaska; May 20, 2014; Federal District Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Petitioner International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959 filed a motion for summary judgment, which was opposed by respondent Horizon Lines of Alaska, LLC, alongside a cross-motion for summary judgment from Horizon. The background involves Horizon, a maritime shipping company employing approximately 17 truck drivers who lease their trucks to the company. Local 959 represents these drivers under a collective bargaining agreement that mandates arbitration for grievances. Following Horizon's suspension of driver Mike Dropik, Local 959 filed a grievance, leading to arbitration on whether Horizon had just cause for the suspension and the appropriate remedy if it did not. The arbitrator ruled that Horizon lacked just cause and ordered compensation for Dropik's lost wages, benefits, and truck payments but did not specify the amounts, retaining jurisdiction for 90 days to resolve disputes regarding the remedy. A dispute arose when Horizon unilaterally refused to pay Dropik's truck payments, claiming the arbitrator lacked authority. Local 959 subsequently sought judicial confirmation of the arbitration award under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court noted that both parties sought confirmation of the award but highlighted that the arbitrator's decision was not final, thus lacking jurisdiction to address either party's requests, as any judicial review before a final award would disrupt the federal policy favoring arbitration and could lead to piecemeal litigation.

An arbitrator's decision is considered final and binding only if it fully resolves all claims, including damages. If the arbitrator retains jurisdiction to address damages disputes, the award is not deemed final. In the case of *Millmen*, the Ninth Circuit ruled that an arbitrator's award, which determined liability but deferred the remedy to the parties while retaining jurisdiction, was not final and therefore not subject to review under section 301. The court compared this to the finality requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which defines a final judgment as one that ends litigation completely. Similarly, in *Union Switch*, the Third Circuit found an arbitrator's award that ordered the company to remedy a situation without specifying damages was also not final, emphasizing that parties cannot rush to court before the arbitrator has fully resolved the issues, as this would contradict the purpose of arbitration. Ultimately, both courts concluded that an award lacking a complete determination of the remedy cannot be considered final. In the present case, the arbitrator's directive for Horizon to make Dropik whole was insufficiently specific regarding the amount owed, indicating that the award was not final and required further determination.

Unresolved factual issues include the calculation of truck payments, the number of payments Dropik lost during his suspension, and whether he mitigated his damages. Court intervention at this stage would violate federal labor policy and arbitration principles, especially since the arbitrator retained jurisdiction to address remedy disputes, suggesting his award was not meant to be final. Horizon argues that Local 959 waived its right to present evidence on these issues by not raising them during the arbitrator's 90-day retention period. However, this argument lacks merit; the case cited, Teamsters Local Union, No. 760 v. United Parcel Service, Inc., is not applicable here, as the waiver issue was previously resolved by the arbitrator. In this case, the waiver has not been submitted to the arbitrator, making the court's consideration of the issue premature.

The cross-motions for summary judgment filed by both parties are denied, and the case is dismissed and remanded to the arbitrator for the completion of the arbitration award. Horizon's claims regarding the absence of truck payment references in the arbitration record are deemed false, as the record contains no documentation of such payments, despite Horizon's eventual concession. The Union's request for make-whole relief, including wages, benefits, and lost truck payments during the suspension period, is recognized as an appropriate remedy. The excerpt cites various legal precedents emphasizing that a court should refrain from reviewing an arbitrator's decision until a final and binding award is issued. It also notes that if the grievance award is determined not to be final and binding under the collective bargaining agreement, enforcement under Section 301 cannot proceed. The document further clarifies that mathematical computations remaining in the award do not prevent its finality, and the arbitrator’s completion of these calculations is not necessary for the award to be considered final and reviewable.