Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 December 1983
• Docket Number: No. 81-2283,SEA-LAND,81-2283
• Citation: 720 F.2d 857
• Parties: 114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3663, 99 Lab.Cas. P 10,615 Norman E. EDWARDS and Bobby Wayne Mize, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 857

720 F.2d 857

114 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3663, 99 Lab.Cas. P 10,615

Norman E. EDWARDS and Bobby Wayne Mize, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 81-2283.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 5, 1983.

Walter Jefferson, Steven L. Weathered, Houston, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Robert J. Attaway, Barlow & Attaway, Princeton, N.J., for Sea-Land Service.

Hicks, Gillispie, James & Agee, James L. Hicks, Jr., Dallas, Tex., for Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, et al.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before THORNBERRY, REAVLEY and RANDALL, Circuit Judges.

RANDALL, Circuit Judge:

Under section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 (1976), ¹ an employee may bring an action charging his employer with breach of a collective bargaining agreement, and his union with violating its duty of fair representation in mishandling the ensuing grievance. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 186-87, 87 S.Ct. 903, 914-15, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); see Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, 424 U.S. 554, 567, 96 S.Ct. 1048, 1058, 47 L.Ed.2d 231 (1976). Neither section 301 nor any other section of the LMRA expressly designates the statute of limitations applicable to such Vaca-Hines actions.

In DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), the Supreme Court held that the six-month statute of limitations provided by section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 160 (1976), would apply to an employee's suit against an employer and a union under section 301 of the LMRA. The sole issue we must decide is whether DelCostello applies retroactively. We hold that it does and that the suit against Sea-Land Service, Inc. ("Sea-Land") and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 988 (the "Union") must be dismissed.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.

On December 27, 1978, following several years of employment by Sea-Land, Norman E. Edwards and Bobby Wayne Mize (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs") received layoff notices pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement in effect between Sea-Land and the Union. On January 2, 1979, Plaintiffs filed contractual grievance reports protesting their layoff. On January 15, 1979, Sea-Land amended the reasons for its layoff notices. On April 1, 1980, Plaintiffs received notice that, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, their claims had been submitted to arbitration and denied. On April 21, 1981, Plaintiffs filed suit in the district court pursuant to section 301 of the LMRA, alleging that Sea-Land violated the collective bargaining agreement by laying off and ultimately dismissing them and that the Union violated its duty of "fair representation" by its manner of representing them in the contractual arbitration procedure. They also alleged that they were not reinstated because of age discrimination.

The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims against Sea-Land and the Union for lack of timeliness. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling in United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981), we held that the Plaintiffs' claim against Sea-Land was governed by Texas' four-year "catch all" statute of limitations. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5529 (Vernon 1956). Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 678 F.2d 1276, 1290 (5th Cir.1982). In the absence of guidance from the Supreme Court on the applicable statute of limitations as to the fair representation claim, we applied Texas' two-year statute of limitations applicable to tort actions. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5526 (Vernon 1982). 678 F.2d at 1292. Since the Plaintiffs in the present case had brought their collective bargaining/fair representation claims within thirteen months of the injuries complained of, we reversed the district court's dismissal of the suit against Sea-Land and the Union.

Following our decision, the Union petitioned for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of that petition, however, the Supreme Court decided DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, supra. The Supreme Court, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 3104, 77 L.Ed.2d 1360, acted upon the Union's petition for certiorari by vacating our earlier decision and remanding the case to the panel for reconsideration in light of DelCostello.

II. RETROACTIVITY OF DelCOSTELLO.

As a general rule an appellate court must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision. Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473, 486 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. 2870, 2879 n. 16, 69 L.Ed.2d 784 (1981); United States v. Schooner Peggy, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103, 110, 2 L.Ed. 49 (1801). Plaintiffs' Vaca-Hines suit against their employer and the Union is indistinguishable from the suits involved in DelCostello. Consequently, if DelCostello applies retroactively, section 10(b)'s six-month statute of limitations, rather than any state statute of limitations, applies to bar Plaintiffs' claims.

Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92 S.Ct. 349, 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), sets forth three factors that we must consider to determine whether a civil statute of limitations applies retroactively. First, we must decide whether the decision establishes "a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which the litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed." Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106, 92 S.Ct. at 355. Second, we must look to the prior history of the decision in question, and to its purpose and effect, to ascertain " 'whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.' " Id. at 106-07, 92 S.Ct. at 355 (quoting Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1738, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965)). Third, we must weigh "the inequity imposed by retroactive application." Chevron, 404 U.S. at 107, 92 S.Ct. at 355.

A. The Change from Prior Law.

To determine whether DelCostello created a new principle of law by overruling clear past precedent or deciding an issue of first impression, we must compare DelCostello with prior law. If DelCostello wrought "an abrupt and fundamental shift in doctrine as to constitute an entirely new rule which in effect replaced an older one" on which Plaintiffs relied, retroactive application may be inappropriate. Hanover Shoe v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 392 U.S. 481, 498, 88 S.Ct. 2224, 2234, 20 L.Ed.2d 1231 (1968).

Prior to DelCostello, the Supreme Court had not determined the statute of limitations applicable to Vaca-Hines actions. In International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), AFL-CIO v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696, 86 S.Ct. 1107, 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966), the Supreme Court considered the limitations period for a different type of section 301 action, ² and stated "that the timeliness of a Sec. 301 suit, such as the present one, is to be determined as a matter of federal law, by reference to the appropriate state statute of limitations." Id. at 704-05, 86 S.Ct. at 1113. However, the Court specifically noted that it was not required to decide "[w]hether other Sec. 301 suits different from the present one might call for the application of other rules of timeliness," and that it indicated "no view whatsoever on that question." Id. at 705 n. 7, 86 S.Ct. at 1113 n. 7.

Prior to the determination in DelCostello that the section 10(b) six-month statute of limitations applies to both the contract suit under section 301 and the fair representation claim, the circuits could not agree on whether the same statute of limitations governed both the action against the employer and the action against the union. ³ This circuit had held that different statutes of limitations applied to the two actions composing hybrid section 301/fair representation claims. See, e.g., Rigby v. Roadway Express, Inc., 680 F.2d 342, 344 (5th Cir.1982).

From the time Plaintiffs' action arose until they filed suit, there was no clear precedent on which Plaintiffs could rely in waiting thirteen months to file their suit against Sea-Land. Texas has not assigned a specific limitation to arbitration actions arising from collective bargaining agreements and, prior to our vacated decision in this case, we had never addressed the question as to which Texas statute of limitations would be applicable to an action against an employer under section 301 of the LMRA. Although the four-year Texas statute of limitations for breach of contract, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5527 (Vernon 1982), had been applied to a section 301 claim in Hensley v. United Transports, Inc., 346 F.Supp. 1108, 1115 (N.D.Tex.1972), this decision, from a district court other than that in which Plaintiffs filed suit, hardly constitutes "clear past precedent" as contemplated by Chevron.

The existence of precedent with regard to the fair representation claim, however, presents a greater problem. Prior to Plaintiffs' layoff, we held in Sanderson v. Ford Motor Co., 483 F.2d 102, 114 (5th Cir.1973), that an employee's action against a union for fair representation should be governed by the state statute of limitations for tort actions. See also Cox v. C.H. Masland & Sons, Inc., 607 F.2d 138, 143 (5th Cir.1979). Thus, with regard to the statute of limitations governing fair representation claims, DelCostello overrules past precedent, at least in this circuit.

B. The Purpose of the DelCostello Ruling.

We next examine whether retrospective operation of the Supreme Court's ruling in DelCostello "will further or retard its operation." Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106-07, 92 S.Ct. at 355. The Supreme Court expressed three purposes underlying the DelCostello rule. First, the Court recognized "the need for...