Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03174/USCOURTS-ca7-15-03174-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 15-3174

CALUMET RIVER FLEETING, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,

LOCAL 150, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 14-cv-00133 — Sharon Johnson Coleman, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED FEBRUARY 23, 2016 — DECIDED MAY 31, 2016

____________________

Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and SYKES and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

HAMILTON, Circuit Judge. In July 2013, plaintiff Calumet 

River Fleeting, Inc. fired a boat operator, and defendant International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO 

(“the Union”) filed a grievance with Calumet over the termination. Calumet refused to participate in the arbitration, saying that although it was once a party to a collective bargaining 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
2 No. 15-3174

agreement with the Union, Calumet had terminated its participation in that agreement before the dispute arose over the 

firing. When the Union took steps to start the arbitration, Calumet filed this suit to stop it. The Union counterclaimed for 

an order compelling arbitration. The district court granted 

summary judgment to Calumet, holding that it was no longer 

a party to any agreement with the Union that might have required arbitration.

The Union has appealed, arguing that an earlier arbitration award in an unrelated proceeding had found that Calumet was an alter ego of Selvick Marine Construction, LLC, a 

company that was a party to the collective bargaining agreement. By virtue of the alter ego relationship, the Union contends that Calumet had to submit to arbitration.

We affirm. We first find that we have appellate jurisdiction 

over this matter despite the lack of a separate judgment. On 

the merits, the arbitration award on which the Union relies 

does not show that Calumet was still a party to the collective 

bargaining agreement. Calumet is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law.

I. Factual Background and Procedural History

We review de novo a district court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Exelon Generation Co. v. Local 15, 

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 540 F.3d 640, 643 

(7th Cir. 2008). The general standards for summary judgment 

do not change: with “cross summary judgment motions, we 

construe all facts and inferences therefrom ‘in favor of the 

party against whom the motion under consideration is 

made.’” In re United Air Lines, Inc., 453 F.3d 463, 468 (7th Cir. 

2006), quoting Kort v. Diversified Collection Services, Inc., 394 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
No. 15-3174 3

F.3d 530, 536 (7th Cir. 2005). Because we need consider only 

Calumet’s motion for summary judgment, we resolve all factual disputes and draw all reasonable inferences in the Union’s favor. 

A. Background of the Companies and Their Relationship with 

the Union

Plaintiff Calumet River Fleeting, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation engaged in marine towing. It was formed by John 

Selvick in 1999. The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO is a labor organization that represents heavy equipment operators, mechanics, and other employees in parts of Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa.

In 2006, Calumet and the Union signed a memorandum of 

agreement binding Calumet to the terms of the Great Lakes 

Floating Agreement. The Floating Agreement is a collective 

bargaining agreement that covers marine construction. The 

memorandum of agreement contained an “evergreen clause” 

requiring the employer to adhere to the terms of each successive edition of the agreement unless and until the agreement 

was properly terminated.

In September 2008, Calumet terminated its participation in 

the Floating Agreement. This meant that contractors who 

were themselves signatories to the Floating Agreement could 

no longer hire Calumet without violating the agreement’s 

subcontracting provision. Less than two years later, in April 

2010, John Selvick organized a new company called Selvick 

Marine Construction, LLC. Selvick Marine signed a memorandum of agreement with the Union on June 2, 2010 adopting the terms of the Floating Agreement. Mr. Selvick also 

signed a towing addendum on Selvick Marine’s behalf. The 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
4 No. 15-3174

towing addendum covers non-construction towing work. 

Like the Floating Agreement, it contains an evergreen clause.

B. The 2012 Arbitration

In September 2011, the Union filed three grievances 

against Selvick Marine, initiating the three-step grievance 

procedure prescribed by the Floating Agreement. The Union 

alleged that Selvick Marine had violated the Floating Agreement when it performed certain work without following the 

agreement’s procedures. It was actually Calumet, not Selvick 

Marine, that had performed the work in question, but the Union sought to hold Selvick Marine accountable. Under the Union’s theory, the two companies were alter egos, so Calumet’s 

actions—and its failure to comply with the Floating Agreement—were attributable to Selvick Marine, which was a party 

to the Floating Agreement.

The parties could not agree on the grievances, so the Union submitted them to arbitration. Selvick Marine appeared to 

participate. Calumet did not, although it had been served 

with a subpoena duces tecum that identified the date and time 

of the arbitration. In between hearing dates, the Union filed 

suit to enforce the subpoena. In that suit, Calumet argued that 

it was not Selvick Marine’s alter ego, but it never made the 

same argument in front of the arbitrator.

On July 24, 2012, the arbitrator issued his decision and 

award. He found that John Selvick had formed Selvick Marine 

to recapture work that Calumet had lost when it terminated 

its agreement with the Union. The arbitrator concluded that 

Selvick Marine and Calumet were alter ego companies, pointing out: Mr. Selvick supplied capital to Selvick Marine; employees of both companies reported to the same location for 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
No. 15-3174 5

work; Selvick Marine used only Calumet boats in its work; 

and the companies shared stationery, employees, forms, logs, 

worksheets, fueling vendors, and insurance policies. Although Selvick Marine maintained it was a separate company, 

the arbitrator disagreed. He expressly declined to pass judgment on the legality of the arrangement between Calumet and 

Selvick Marine, but he found that when Calumet performed 

work using union employees in the Union’s territory, that 

work was subject to the Floating Agreement by virtue of 

Selvick Marine’s signatory status. He then sustained the Union’s grievances.

Turning to the question of a remedy, the arbitrator found 

that the work that had violated the Floating Agreement could 

not be undone, nor could Selvick Marine retroactively comply 

with the relevant provisions of the agreement. He ordered 

back pay and benefits to make whole the Union workers who 

had not been compensated in conformity with the Floating 

Agreement. He did not order any prospective relief, however, 

noting that the 2009–2011 Floating Agreement had expired on 

December 31, 2011 and that it was unclear whether any continuing relationship existed between the Union, Selvick Marine, and Calumet since the agreement’s expiration. Thus, he 

concluded, he was “without authority to issue such a prospective remedy.”

Neither Selvick Marine nor Calumet ever sought to vacate 

or modify the arbitration award. Selvick Marine simply complied with it. Sometime in 2011 or 2012, though, Selvick Marine dissolved and liquidated operations.

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
6 No. 15-3174

C. The Present Dispute

In July 2013, Calumet fired one of its boat operators, Angelo Zuccolo. The Union grieved the firing and eventually demanded arbitration. Calumet refused to participate in the arbitration on the ground that it was not a party to any collective 

bargaining agreement with the Union. The Union notified the 

American Arbitration Association of the dispute and requested an arbitration panel. Calumet then filed this suit seeking both a declaration that it was not a party to any collective 

bargaining agreements with the Union and an injunction preventing the Union from continuing with the arbitration. The 

Union counterclaimed, seeking, among other things, to enforce the July 2012 arbitration decision finding that Selvick 

Marine and Calumet were alter egos and an order compelling 

Calumet to submit to arbitration pursuant to the Floating 

Agreement. The Union agreed to postpone the arbitration 

pending the outcome of this suit. 

Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district 

court rejected the Union’s argument that the 90-day statute of 

limitations to challenge an arbitration award applied to Calumet’s claims. The court also rejected the Union’s attempt to 

rely on the arbitrator’s alter ego finding to show that Calumet 

had been a party through Selvick Marine. The Union had offered no basis apart from the arbitrator’s conclusion to support an alter ego finding, so the court concluded that it had no 

basis to enforce against Calumet in this action the arbitrator’s 

finding that Calumet and Selvick Marine were alter egos. Finally, the district court rejected the Union’s argument that the 

Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., prohibited injunctive relief in the case. 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
No. 15-3174 7

For these reasons, the court granted Calumet’s motion, denied the Union’s motion, and dismissed the Union’s counterclaims. The court did not, however, enter a separate judgment 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. On September 

30, 2015, the Union filed a notice of appeal.

II. Appellate Jurisdiction

Before addressing the merits of the appeal, we must be 

sure we have appellate jurisdiction. The Union contends it has 

appealed a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Generally, an 

order is final for appeal purposes under § 1291 “if it ends the 

litigation and leaves nothing to be decided in the district 

court.” United States v. Ettrick Wood Products, Inc., 916 F.2d 

1211, 1216 (7th Cir. 1990).

The question of appellate jurisdiction arose because the 

district court issued a memorandum opinion on the motions 

but did not enter a separate judgment under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 58(a), which requires that a judgment be “set 

out in a separate document.” “The grant of a motion for summary judgment is not one of the exceptions to the separate 

document requirement listed in Rule 58(a), so a separate document was required in this case to have a proper Rule 58 judgment.” Perry v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Local No. 73 Pension Fund, 

585 F.3d 358, 361 (7th Cir. 2009); see also Alpine State Bank v. 

Ohio Casualty Insurance Co., 941 F.2d 554, 558 (7th Cir. 1991) 

(“In satisfying the requirement of Rule 58, neither the memorandum opinion explaining the ruling on summary judgment, nor the minute order announcing the summary judgment can be substituted for a declaratory judgment.”). And 

although Calumet had sought injunctive as well as declaratory relief, the court issued no separate injunction or declaration of rights following the memorandum opinion.

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
8 No. 15-3174

At oral argument, we asked for supplemental briefs on appellate jurisdiction. The responses satisfy us that we have jurisdiction over this appeal. First, the district court’s failure to 

enter a separate Rule 58 judgment is not always decisive. 

Compliance with Rule 58 makes appellate jurisdiction simpler for the parties and the courts, but we may still have jurisdiction if we “know from other sources” that there has been a 

final judgment. First Nat’l Bank of Chicago v. Comptroller of the 

Currency, 956 F.2d 1360, 1363 (7th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(7)(B) (“A failure to set forth a judgment or order 

on a separate document when required by Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 58(a) does not affect the validity of an appeal 

from that judgment or order.”). The federal rules deal with 

such oversights by district courts. When a judgment is not set 

forth on a separate document but Rule 58(a) requires it, we 

treat judgment as entered 150 days after the entry of the judgment or order on the civil docket. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B); 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii); see also Perry, 585 F.3d at 362. In 

this case, the district court entered its memorandum opinion 

and order on September 4, 2015. The 150-day period thus 

lapsed on February 1, 2016, at which point judgment was effectively entered for appeal purposes, and the Union’s earlier 

notice of appeal “is treated as filed on the date of and after the 

entry.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2).

So the district court’s failure to enter a Rule 58 judgment 

does not require dismissal. We still must ask whether the district court was finished with the case, even though it did not 

enter a separate injunction or declaration of the parties’ rights. 

We take the question of the injunction first. Both the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 

which governs the issuance of injunctions in labor disputes, 

require the court to make any injunction specific. See Fed. R. 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
No. 15-3174 9

Civ. P. 65(d)(1) (order granting injunction must “state the reasons why it issued,” “state its terms specifically,” and “describe in reasonable detail ... the act or acts restrained or required”); 29 U.S.C. § 109 (requiring that findings of fact be 

“made and filed by the court” and that injunction be limited 

to a prohibition of a “specific act or acts”). The absence of a 

separate and specific injunction could be a serious problem, 

but the parties’ supplemental briefs told us that they have 

reached a compromise on the issue of injunctive relief. We see 

no need to remand to the district court for entry of an injunction that Calumet no longer seeks or needs.1

As for the request for declaratory judgment, we have said 

that “in declaratory judgment actions, district courts must declare specifically and separately the respective rights of the 

parties, not simply state in a memorandum opinion, minute 

order, or a form prescribed for judgment in a civil case that a 

motion has been granted or denied.” Alpine State Bank, 941 

F.2d at 558. No such declaration appears in the record. Still, 

we may nevertheless have jurisdiction if “‘the practicalities 

weigh heavily’ toward a common sense conclusion that the 

district court intended to enter a final judgment.” Id. at 559 

(internal citation omitted), quoting Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 837 (1989). 

Calumet’s motion for summary judgment asked the district court to “enter a declaration that Calumet is not subject 

to the terms of any collective bargaining agreement with” the 

 1

We also need not decide whether or not Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 applies to cases otherwise covered by the Norris-LaGuardia Act. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(e)(1) (Rule 65 provisions “do not modify ... any federal statute relating to temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions in actions affecting employer and employee[.]”).

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
10 No. 15-3174

Union. The court concluded “that based on the undisputed 

facts Calumet is not a signatory to the 2012–2014 [Floating 

Agreement] or any collective bargaining agreement with the 

Union. Calumet thus cannot be compelled to arbitrate the 

Zuccolo grievance or submit to an audit.” It then granted Calumet’s motion for summary judgment, which addressed all of 

Calumet’s claims, and dismissed the Union’s counterclaims. 

Despite the absence of a separate Rule 58 judgment, the district court’s memorandum and the absence of any other claims 

or later actions by the court make sufficiently plain both what 

the court declared and that the district court was finished with 

the case. We thus have jurisdiction over this appeal. Metzl v. 

Leininger, 57 F.3d 618, 620 (7th Cir. 1995); see also Buck v. U.S. 

Digital Communications, Inc., 141 F.3d 710, 711 (7th Cir. 1998) 

(“If the terms of declaratory relief appeared in the court's 

opinion and it were plain that the case is finished, we would 

not stand on ceremony—at least not as far as the need for a 

‘final decision’ is concerned, although the lack of specificity 

might make the decision hard to enforce.”). We proceed to the 

merits, where we can be brief.

III. Analysis

The district court correctly concluded that the arbitration 

award did not bind Calumet to the 2012–2014 Floating Agreement. We briefly address two preliminary matters that simplify our approach to the appeal. First, as noted above, the 

Union initially contended that the Norris-LaGuardia Act prohibited an injunction in this case. Since the parties have 

reached an agreement that eliminates the request and/or need 

for injunctive relief, we need not decide whether the district 

court correctly decided the Norris-LaGuardia issue. Second, 

because the Union agreed to postpone the arbitration pending 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
No. 15-3174 11

the outcome of this suit, it waived any argument that Calumet 

was required to allow the arbitration to reach a conclusion before proceeding with this case in court. Cf. AT&T Broadband, 

LLC v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 317 F.3d 

758 (7th Cir. 2003) (discussing timing of litigation regarding 

arbitrability of a dispute and concluding company seeking 

anti-arbitration injunction was not entitled to pre-arbitration 

judicial review). 

On the merits, the Union’s argument begins and ends with 

the finding of alter ego in the 2012 arbitration award. The Union asks us to treat that finding as binding Calumet to the 

Floating Agreement for purposes of the dispute over Mr. Zuccolo’s firing based on Selvick Marine’s previous status as a

party to the Floating Agreement. In support, the Union relies 

on the rule that failure to challenge an arbitration award 

within the applicable limitations period renders the award final. See International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150 v. 

Rabine, 161 F.3d 427, 433–34 (7th Cir. 1998) (“The rule is a simple one: If you receive notice of an adverse decision in a federal labor arbitration, challenge it within 90 days or expect to 

pay up.”). The Union also relies on the great deference courts 

give to arbitrators’ awards, enforcing them as long as the arbitrator has arguably interpreted the collective bargaining 

agreement between the parties even if the courts believe the 

arbitrator seriously erred. E.g., Prate Installations, Inc. v. Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters, 607 F.3d 467, 471 (7th Cir. 

2010), quoting Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. International Unions of Painters & Allied Trades, Local 770, 558 F.3d 670, 677 (7th 

Cir. 2009).

These general rules are correct, but they do not address 

this situation. When the arbitrator entered the 2012 award, he 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
12 No. 15-3174

made clear that it should have no prospective effect. Not only 

did he refuse to order prospective compliance with the terms 

of the Floating Agreement, he did so expressly because the 

precise point on which the Union’s current argument depends—the existence of a continuing relationship between 

Calumet and the Union—had not been established:

Moreover, it is unclear on the record before the 

Arbitrator whether there is any continuing relationship, contractual or otherwise, between either IUOE Local 139 and/or IUOE Local 150 and 

[Selvick Marine] and/or [Calumet] since the expiration of the [Floating Agreement] on December 31, 2011.

Selvick Marine chose not to fight the alter ego determination 

or the award of back pay and benefits. It just paid the award. 

At that point, the alter ego determination had served its purpose, holding that Calumet had violated the agreement in the 

past and that Selvick Marine was liable for those violations.

As a purely retrospective determination, the award could 

have no additional impact on Calumet’s relationship with the 

Union going forward. In other words, once Selvick Marine 

paid the award, nothing remained for Calumet to challenge.

It therefore makes no difference here that an arbitration 

award cannot be challenged after the limitations period runs, 

Rabine, 161 F.3d at 433–34, or that judicial review of an award 

is so limited, Prate Installations, 607 F.3d at 471. The Union 

made a strategic decision to rely entirely on the award’s alter

ego finding as a basis to compel arbitration, but the award 

simply does not serve that function. It provided no prospective relief and had no prospective effect. It did not establish 

that Calumet was a party to the Floating Agreement when it 

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13
No. 15-3174 13

fired Zuccolo. It did not establish that Calumet was then the 

alter ego of Selvick Marine, which had dissolved sometime in 

2011 or 2012.

Arbitration “is a matter of contract and a party cannot be 

required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not 

agreed so to submit.” AT & T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 648 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted), quoting United Steelworkers of America 

v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960). The 

Union has failed to pose a genuine dispute of fact as to 

whether Calumet agreed to submit the termination of Zuccolo 

to arbitration. Its alter ego argument failed as discussed 

above, and the undisputed facts of record show that Calumet 

terminated its participation in the Floating Agreement in 

2008. Nor has the Union presented any evidence that Calumet 

itself signed on to later versions of the agreement. On this record, Calumet was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

We DISMISS the portion of the Union’s appeal related to 

injunctive relief. The judgment of the district court is otherwise AFFIRMED.

Case: 15-3174 Document: 30 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pages: 13