Shore Point Distributing Co. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 701, 031319 FED3, 17-3684
|Opinion Judge:||AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGE|
|Party Name:||SHORE POINT DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Appellant v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 701|
|Judge Panel:||Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||March 13, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) March 7, 2019
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-01950) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Before: AMBRO, RESTREPO, and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
AMBRO, CIRCUIT JUDGE
This appeal concerns whether we have jurisdiction to review the District Court's order directing parties back to arbitration so that the arbitrator may clarify how to calculate the award. We do not. The Court denied Shore Point's motion to vacate the award because it concluded that the arbitration was incomplete and the "best strategy" was to order the parties back to arbitration. Because this was an interlocutory order "directing arbitration to proceed," we lack jurisdiction over Shore Point's appeal. 9 U.S.C. § 16(b). It must be dismissed.
Shore Point, a New Jersey beer and beverage distributor, instituted a night-loading policy that provided new benefits to night-shift employees but did not extend those benefits to day-shift employees. The union representing Shore Point's employees objected on the ground that the policy violated its collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The parties agreed to submit to an arbitration hearing, whose purpose was to determine whether the policy violated the CBA and, if so, what should be the remedy.
The arbitrator concluded the policy did violate the CBA, and so the company had to reimburse both day and night-shift employees the difference between the company's overtime wages and what each employee received during the policy period.1 The arbitrator then urged the parties to sort out how the award should be calculated. Parties could submit competing methodologies to the arbitrator, and the arbitrator stated that it retained jurisdiction over "any issues that arise in the implementation of this Award." App. at 76.
The parties could not agree on the correct methodology. The union...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP