UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERN. v. ITT Rayonier, Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-534-Civ-J-12.,89-534-Civ-J-12.
• Citation: 740 F. Supp. 833
• Parties: UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL, LOCAL # 395, and United Paperworkers International, Local # 766, Plaintiffs, v. ITT RAYONIER, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida

740 F. Supp. 833

UNITED PAPERWORKERS INTERNATIONAL, LOCAL # 395, and United Paperworkers International, Local # 766, Plaintiffs, v. ITT RAYONIER, INC., Defendant.

No. 89-534-Civ-J-12.

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division.

June 7, 1990.

John F. MacLennan, Kattman, Eshelman & MacLennan, P.A., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiffs.

Guy O. Farmer, II, Kevin E. Hyde, Jacksonville, Fla., for defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MELTON, District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, filed herein on August 11, 1989. Plaintiffs responded with a memorandum in opposition to the motion, filed herein on August 30, 1989. The Court permitted defendant the opportunity to argue further in a supplemental memorandum, filed herein on May 21, 1990. For the reasons stated herein, the motion will be denied.

Plaintiffs, United Paperworkers International, Local No. 766 and Local No. 395 (collectively "the Union"), initiated this action pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (1988), for specific performance of an arbitration provision of a collective bargaining agreement. The parties agree that defendant ITT Rayonier Incorporated ("the Company") communicated its unequivocal notice of refusal to arbitrate the subject of this litigation on July 15, 1988. Further, the parties agree that the Company was served with the complaint in this matter on July 12, 1989.

The issue posed for resolution on the present motion for summary judgment is whether the action was filed and served within the time permitted by the applicable statute of limitation. The disagreement between the parties lies in the choice of the appropriate statute. The Company submits that this action is governed by the six-month statute of limitation of 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act. If the Company is correct, the action is untimely.¹ The Union, however, proposes that this action is governed by the most analogous state statute of limitation, Fla.Stat. § 95.11(5)(a), which provides one year in which to bring an action for specific performance of a contract. The Court agrees with the Union's interpretation of the governing law and accordingly the action was timely filed and served.

The starting point for a legal analysis regarding the proper statute of limitation is the seminal case of DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). In DelCostello, the Supreme Court decided that hybrid § 301/fair representation cases fell under the six-month statute of limitation of § 10(b) rather than state statutes of limitation. Because § 301 lacks its own statute of limitation, the Court considered the general rule that the most closely analogous state statute of limitation should apply. DelCostello carved out a narrow exception to the general rule.

On the assumption that Congress would not choose "to adopt state limitations rules at odds with the purpose or operation of federal substantive law," we have recognized a closely circumscribed exception to the general rule that statutes of limitation are to be borrowed from state law. We decline to borrow a state statute of limitations only "when a rule from elsewhere in federal law clearly provides a closer analogy than available state statutes, and when the federal policies at stake and the practicalities of litigation make that rule a significantly more appropriate vehicle for interstitial lawmaking." This is a narrow exception to the general rule. As we made clear in DelCostello, "in labor law or elsewhere," application of a federal statute will be unusual, and "resort to state law remains the norm for borrowing of limitations periods."

Reed v. United Transportation Union, 488 U.S. 319, 109 S.Ct. 621, 625, 102 L.Ed.2d 665 (1989) (quoting DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 161, 172, 171, 103 S.Ct. at 2289, 2294, 2293, respectively) (citations omitted).

After DelCostello and before Reed, the former case was described as establishing "a somewhat fluid balancing test for straightforward claims — one in which we are to adopt state limitations periods if they provide a direct analogy and arise out of similar policy considerations, but should adopt the section 10(b) period if state law does not afford sufficiently direct guidance." Samples v. Ryder Truck Lines, Inc., 755 F.2d 881, 888 (11th Cir.1985). In the wake of the latter case, however, the balancing test should "take seriously the Court's admonition that analogous state statutes of limitations are to be used unless they frustrate or significantly interfere with federal policies." Reed, 109 S.Ct. at 627. Thus the balance initially tilts in favor of a state limitations period, if it provides a sound analogy, but the balance can be shifted by a demonstrable conflict between the state limitations period and the core federal interest of § 301.

Prior cases in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, arising from Alabama and Georgia, rejected state limitations periods for breach of contract claims and adopted the federal six-month statute of limitation. See International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1688 v. Allied Products Corp., 786 F.2d 1561 (11th Cir.1986); Samples, supra. In the Georgia case, the appellate court canvassed the statute concerning enforcement of judicial determinations and the statute concerning actions to enforce contracts, finding "no reasonably applicable rule as to the proper time limitation for the union's action to enforce the arbitration," Samples, 755 F.2d at 888. The court's rationale embraces both the dissimilarity between the kinds of actions with which the state statutes are concerned and the six to seven year length of the limitations periods. The Alabama case, which, like this case, arose as an action to compel arbitration, repeats these points of emphasis. See Allied Products, 786 F.2d at 1564. In both cases, the court expressed special concern over the conflict between the length of time permitted by the state statutes of limitation — six years or more — and the federal policy relating to the prompt resolution of labor disputes.

Like Alabama and Georgia, Florida does not have a statute of limitation for an action to compel arbitration. Therefore, consistent with this precedent, the Court first analyzes the fitness of the analogy between an action for specific performance of a contract and an action to compel arbitration pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The Company argues that the analogy has been rejected in substance by the decision in Allied Products finding a dissimilarity between an action to redress breach of contract and an action to compel arbitration. The Court disagrees. The Alabama statute in Allied Products did not focus solely on actions for specific performance and this distinction is crucial.

An action to compel arbitration is an action for specific performance of the promise to arbitrate grievance disputes. The Union recognizes this basic tenet of labor law in the very terms used in the complaint. Its description, of course, is not dispositive, but the foundation for its assertion lies in the case upon which all § 301 suits rest, Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957). A pivotal issue in Lincoln Mills concerned the effect of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, whether it withdrew jurisdiction to compel arbitration of grievance disputes. The Court stated, "Though a literal reading might bring the dispute within the terms of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, we see no justification for restricting § 301(a) to damage suits, leaving specific performance of a contract to arbitrate grievance disputes to the inapposite procedural requirements of that Act." Id. at 458, 77 S.Ct. at 918 (citation and footnote omitted) (emphasis added). This language leaves no doubt as to the nature of the present suit. Lower courts deciding suits subsequent to Lincoln Mills have found no difficulty in concluding, "it is settled that a federal court may order specific performance of provisions for arbitration contained in collective bargaining agreements." Kentucky W. Va. Gas Co. v. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Union Local No. 3-510, 549 F.2d 407, 412 (6th Cir.1977); see, e.g., Local No. 149, Am.Fed. of Tech. Eng'rs v. General Elec. Co., 250 F.2d 922, 929-30 (1st Cir.1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 938, 78 S.Ct. 780, 2 L.Ed.2d 813 (1958); Pock v. New York Typographical Union No. 6, 223 F.Supp. 181, 184 (S.D.N.Y.1963); Local Union No. 1055, IBEW v. Gulf Power Co., 175 F.Supp. 315, 317 (N.D.Fla.1959); Butte Miners' Union No. 1 v. Anaconda Co., 159 F.Supp. 431, 433 (D.Mont.1958), aff'd, 267 F.2d 940 (9th Cir.1959); Food Handlers Local 425, Amal. Meat Cutters v. Pluss Poultry, Inc., 158 F.Supp. 650, 657 (W.D. Ark.), aff'd, 260 F.2d 835 (8th Cir.1958).

This recognition of the close relation between actions for specific performance and actions to compel arbitration of grievance disputes places the first DelCostello issue squarely before the Court. Which provides the closer analogy to this kind of § 301 suit, the state statute of limitation or the federal statute? The obvious answer appears to be the state statute. Unlike previous cases that have rejected application of state statutes, this case involves a precise, tightly analogous Florida statute of limitation that describes the kind of cause of action advanced in this suit.

Section 10(b), by contrast, concerns unfair labor practices. Reflexive application of this statute to all suits to compel arbitration commits the error of ignoring the instruction in DelCostello, and emphasized in Reed, to resort to state law as the norm for borrowing of limitation periods. See International Union of Elevator Constructors v. Home Elevator Co., 798 F.2d 222, 228 n. 6 (7th Cir.1986); see also Posadas de Puerto Rico Assocs., Inc. v....