FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT M ar c h 28, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 14772 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 1 0 9 4 - C V - J - 2 5 - MMH A L B E R T S T E W A R D , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t,

v ersu s I N T E RN A T I O N A L L O N G S H O R E M E N 'S A S S O C I A T I O N , L o c a l N o . 1 4 0 8 , D ef endant -A pp el l ee .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ar c h 28, 2007) B efo re B IR C H , B A R K E T T an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A l be r tS t e w a r d, pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s gr a ntof the I nt e r na t i ona l L ongs hor e m a n’ s A s s oc i a t i on’ s ( “ I L A ” ) m ot i on t o di s m i s s or , i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , m o t i o n f

o rs u m m a r y j u d g m e n t . S t e wa r d ’ s c o m p l a i n ta l l e g e d th a tI L A, h is u n io n , f

a ile d to r e f

e rh im to jo b s f

o rw h ic h h e w a s q u a lif

ie d , in b r e a c h o f

its duty of f a i rr e pr e s e nt a t i on unde rthe N a t i ona l L a borR e l a t i ons A c t( “ N L R A ” ) , 29 U . S . C . § 1 51 et . se q. S t ew ar d argues thatthe di stri ctcourterroneou sl y c on cl ud ed tha thi s c om pl a i ntw a s t i m e - ba r r e d. W e r e v i e w a n o r d e rg r a n t i n g s u mma r y j u d g me n td e n o v o , ap p l y i n g th e s a me s ta n d a r d s a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a n d v ie w in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o s t f a v o r a b le t o the non- m ovi ng pa r ty . B os tv. F e d. E xpr e s s C orp. , 372 F . 3d 1233, 1237- 38 ( 11th C i r . 2004) . S um m a r y j udgm e nti s appr opr i a t e onl y i f “ the r e i s no ge nui ne i ssu e as t o an y m at eri al factan d . . . th e m o v i n g p arty i s en t i t l ed t o a j u d g m en tas a m att erof l aw . ” I d. at12 37 (quo t at i on and ci t at i on om i t t ed). T h e d istrict co u rt g ra n ted IL A ’s m o ti o n o n th e g ro u n d s th at S tew ar d ’s co m p l ai n tw as b arred b y th e st atu t e o f l i m i t at i o n s. W h en a u n i o n m em b er su es a uni on f orbr e a c hi ng i t s duty of

f a i rr e pr e s e nt a t i on, the s i x- m onth s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons e s t a bl i s he d i n S e c t i on 10( b) of the N L R A appl i e s . H e c hl e rv. I nt ’ l B hd. of E l ec . W orkers , 83 4 F . 2d 94 2, 94 4 (11 th C i r. 19 87 ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). In r e l e va ntpa r t , tha tpr ovi s i on s t a t e s “ [ t ] ha tno c om pl a i nts ha l l i s s ue ba s e d upon a nyIn Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), w e adopte d as 1 binding prece dent all the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down on or be fore September 30, 1981. 3 unf a i rl a borpr a c t i c e oc c ur r i ng m or e tha n s i x m onths pr i ort o the f i l i ng of the c ha r ge w i th the B oa r d . . . . ” 29 U . S . C . § 160( b) . “ F orthe purpos e of de t e r m i ni ng w he n the § 10( b) pe r i od be gi ns t o run, w e l ook t o w he n pl a i nt i f f s e i the rw e r e or s h o u ld h a v e b e e n a w a r e o f th e in ju r y its e lf

. . . .” B e n s o n v . G e n . M o to r s C o rp ., 7 1 6 F .2 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 4 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . W hen t he pl ai nt i ff

al l eges re peat ed i nj uri es , S ec t i on 10 (b) does notbar l egal ac ti o n so lo n g as th e “co m p lain t i s f il ed w ith in six m o n th s o f o n e s u ch [in ju ry ], no tw i thst andi ng the fa ctthatm ore than si x m on ths pass ed betw ee n t he ea rl i er [ i nj ur i e s ] a nd the f

i l i ng of the c ha r ge . ” N L R B v. P r e s t on H . H a s ke l l C o. , 616 F . 2d 13 6, 14 0-41 (5th C i r. 19 80 ) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed). “ E ac h [i nj ury] re pres ent s a n 1 i nde pe nde ntunf

a i rl a borpr a c t i c e tha tdoe s notde r i ve i t s i l l e ga l c ha r a c t e rf r om e a r l i e rvi ol a t i ons a nd, a s l ong a s one di s c r e t e vi ol a t i on oc c ur r e d w i thi n s i x m onths o f th e f ilin g o f c h a r g e s , le g a l a c tio n is tim e ly .” I d . a t 1 4 1 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . H e r e , S t e w a r d a l l e ge d i n hi s c om pl a i nttha tI L A ’ s f a i l ur e s t o r e f

e rhi m f or em pl oym entcont i nu ed throu gh “ the pres ent ”— w hi ch w ou l d h ave been O ct ob er 2 0 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d a te h e f

ile d h is c o m p la in t. A c c o r d in g ly , I L A h a d th e b u r d e n to pr ove tha t , c ontr a r y t o S t e w a r d’ s a l l e ga t i on, i tdi d notf a i l t o r e f e rhi m f orSteward also seeks to file a motion to supplement the re cord w ith documents that were 2 no t pre sente d o r evaluate d b y thedis tric t c ourt . The sedo c uments may e sta bli shthat hi s complaint is based on ILA’s failure to ref er him to a job on April 15, 2005, and that he lear ned of that f ailureon thesameda

y , re nd e ringhis c laim b arre d b y thestatut eof

lim itatio ns . B e c a

us e none of the se documents werebefore the district cour t, we dec line to supplement the rec ord on a pp e a l. We also concludethat ILA’s alter nate grounds for a ffirmingthe district court opinion are 4 em pl oym entthathe w as ot herw i se qu al i fi ed for i n t he si x m on ths pri or t o O ct ob er 20, 2005. W i tho utre qu i ri ng such proo f, the di stri ctcourterroneou sl y c on cl ud ed that S te w a r d h a d to b r in g h is c o m p la in t w ith in s ix m o n th s o f M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 , th e d a te th a t th e N L R B r e

je c te d a n ap p e a l h e s u b m itte d to th e m . T h is c o n c lu s io n is e r r o n e o u s b e c a u s e S te w a r d ’s a lle g e d in ju r y d id n o t a r is e e x c lu s iv e ly o u t o f f a c ts a lle g e d th e N L R B p r o c e e d in g s . M o r e o v e r , S te w a r d ’s a lle g e d in ju r ie s c o n tin u e d to the dat e he f

i l ed hi s c om pl ai nt . T here fore , the di stri ctcourterre d b y f i nd i ng that th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s p e r io d b e g a n o n M a r c h 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 . I n a c c or da nc e w i th ourpr e c e de nt , the s i x- m onth s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od b e g a n o n th e la s t d a te b e f o r e S te w a r d f

ile d h is c o m p la in t o n w h ic h I L A f a ile d to re fe r hi m for e m pl oym entand S t ew ar d l ea rned or shou l d h ave l ea rned of that in ju r y . S e e P r e s to n H . H a s k e ll C o ., 6 1 6 F .2 d a t 1 4 0 - 4 1 ; B e n s o n , 7 1 6 F .2 d a t 8 6 4 . B as ed o n th e r ec o rd b ef o re it , th e d istrict co u rt sh o u ld h av e f o u n d th at S tew ar d ’s c om pl a i ntw a s nott i m e - ba r r e d be c a us e I L A di d notpr oduc e a ny e vi de nc e s how i ng tha tS t e w a r d di d nots uf f e ra n i nj ur y i n the s i x m onths pr i ort o O c t obe r20, 2005. 2without merit. The NLRB does not have exclusive jurisdiction over Steward’s claim. B reining er

v. Sheet Metal Worker s Int’l Ass’n L ocal Union No. 6, 493 U .S. 67, 75-77 (1990). Stewa rd wa s not bound to include his employer in the c omplaint becausein the context of a complaint alleg ing a fair repre sentation claim for failureto refer to employ ment, the union’s liability does not depend on a

ny action by the employer. B reining er, 493 U .S. at 82-84. L ast, the statute of limit ations should not run from the datethat Steward w as terminate d from his job, July 26, 2004, be c a us ehea lle g e s th at ILA c ontin ue d todeny

him re ferra ls. 5 RE V E RS E D A ND RE MAND E D.