### FI LED U . S . COURT OF APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J une 27 , 2 005 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1616 5 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 03-00206 -CV -FT M-29-SPC SOUTHW EST FLORIDA AREA LOCAL AMERIC AN POSTAL W ORKERS UNION AFL-CIO, INC., Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us UNITED STAT ES POSTAL SERVICE, De fendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J un e 27, 200 5) Be fo re H U L L , W IL SO N a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M:2

T he A m er ic anP ost al W orke rs U nion appe al s th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s gr an t of
sum m ar y j udgm en t i n f

av or of the U nit ed

S ta tes Po st al Ser

vic e. T he U nio n f

ile d a class action grievance in response to the Postal Service’ s announ cem ent that
em ploy ee bre aks at the Fort My ers, Florida Post Of fic e wo u l d be cut from

fiftee n
m inu te s to te n. A n a rb itr at or f ound in fa vor of the Uni on , a nd the U nio n f ile d th is
ac tio n to c onf

irm a nd e nf or ce the ar

bitra tio n aw ar d. T he U nio n br ough t t his a ct ion pursuant to the Postal Reorganization Ac t of 1970 , codified at 39 U .S .C. § 1208 (b). Se ct ion120 8( b) of the A ct is an al ogou s to se ct ion301 (a ) of the L ab or

Mana ge m en t Relations Act, codified at 29 U. S. C. § 185 (a). T he district court therefore concluded tha t the U nio n’ s ac tio n to en fo rc e its aw ar d w as ba rr ed by the six m ont hs s ta tut e of lim itations period co n t ai n ed in 29 U.S .C. § 160(b). A ccordingly , the district court gr an te d s umm ary jud gm en t i n fa vo r of th e Po st al Serv ic e. O n a ppe al , the U nio n c ont en ds tha t t he dis tr ic t c ourt er re d in ap ply ing the six
m o n t h s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n 2 9 U
. S
. C
. § 1 6 0 ( b )
. R a t h e r , the U nio n arg ue s t ha t t hi s ac ti on is go ve rn ed by Flo rid a’s fiv e y ear st at ut e of li m it at io ns . See. Fl a. S ta t. § 68 4. 24( 3) (a ) an d § 95 .11( 2) (b ). C ha pte r 684 of

the F lor ida

S ta tut es , how ev er , c onc ern s ar

bitra tio ns i nvol vin g in te rn at ion al a ff ai rs , not a rb itr at ion s inv olv ing la

bor r el at ion s. O ur

pr ec ed en t i nst ru ct s us tha t a sui t to e nf

or ce af av or ab le arbi tr at iona w ar d is ase ct ion301 c la im , a nd tha t t he c ha ra ct er of suc h ac la im3

co m pe ls a fi nd in g t ha t fe de ral law s ho ul d a pp ly. Samples v. Ry der Truck Lines, Inc. , 755 F. 2d 8 81, 884 ( 11t h C ir
. 198 5)
. O ur pr ec ed en t a lso ins tr

ucts th at in a straightforwar d section 30 1 claim a party has six m onth s in w hich to seek to enforce
an arb it rat io n a ward
. Se e id

. at 888. T his action pu rsuant to the Postal Reorganization Act is a nalogo us to a straightforward section 301 claim
. The district court, there fore, corre ctly determ ined that the six m onth statute of lim itations applies to the U nio n’ s c la im

in thi s ca se . (R -4 0 at 11- 12. ) O ur bin din g pr ec ed en t c om pe ls th is res ul t. The Uniona l so c on t e nd s onapp e a l t ha tt he d oc t r i ne o f e qu i t abl e e st op pel shou ld bar the Postal Ser vice from prevailing on its statute of lim itations defense. T he dis tr ic t cour

t cor re ct ly re j ec te d this ar gum en t, a s it is unsu ppor te d by the r ec or d. (R-4 0 a t 1 0- 11 .) T he dis tr ic t cour

t’ s ju dgm en t dism iss ing the U nio n’ s ac tio n a s ti m e- ba rr ed is, therefore , AFFIR MED.