UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1981

SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Local 399, 

AFL-CIO,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES L. MCLEMORE, d/b/a Maximum Air Flow,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District 

Judge. (2:07-cv-02912-CWH)

Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Christopher W. Johnson, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, L.L.P., 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael T. Anderson, 

Arlus J. Stephens, MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC, Washington, D.C., for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Maximum Air Flow Co. appeals the district court’s order 

enforcing an interest-arbitration award and a grievancearbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Workers’ Association 

International, Local 399, AFL-CIO (“Sheet Metal Workers’”). We

affirm. 

Sheet Metal Workers’ is an agent and local union that

represents sheet metal workers in the collective bargaining

process. Maximum Air Flow is a private company located in South 

Carolina that handles sheet metal ducting for heating and 

ventilation systems. Sheet Metal Workers’ and Maximum Air Flow 

were parties to several pre-hire agreements prior to the one at 

issue here. This case arises out of the third pre-hire agreement

(“Agreement”). The Agreement contained a mandatory dispute 

resolution process for grievances of either party, requiring the 

parties to participate in the National Joint Adjustment Board’s

(“NJAB”) arbitration procedure. The Agreement also contained an 

interest-arbitration clause, which established that if

negotiations for a renewal of the Agreement came to a deadlock, 

the parties were to submit the issue to the NJAB for a binding 

decision on the matter. 

In May 2006, Sheet Metal Workers’ notified Maximum Air Flow 

that it wanted to renew the Agreement. After the parties were 

unable to reach a new agreement, Sheet Metal Workers’ submitted 
3

the unresolved negotiations to the NJAB. The NJAB ultimately 

ordered the parties to execute an agreement, the interestarbitration award, which was to be negotiated by the area 

contractor group and Sheet Metal Workers’. 

Maximum Air Flow refused to comply with the interestarbitration agreement, prompting Sheet Metal Workers’ to file a 

grievance with the NJAB. The NJAB thereafter issued a grievancearbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Workers’, awarding 

$341,915.00 in damages and an additional $47,589.00 to be paid 

to the Local 399 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee. 

Sheet Metal Workers’ brought the underlying action pursuant 

to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 

U.S.C. § 185, seeking judicial confirmation and enforcement of 

the two arbitration awards, plus costs and attorney’s fees. 

Maximum Air Flow responded by moving to vacate both awards.

Sheet Metal Workers’ contended that the statute of limitations 

precluded Maximum Air Flow from vacating the awards. 

The district court, after a hearing, agreed with Sheet 

Metal Workers’ that the statute of limitations barred Maximum 

Air Flow’s challenge. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local 

399, AFL-CIO v. Maximum Air Flow Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 392

(D.S.C. 2012). Specifically, the district court held the dispute 

was a labor management dispute and thus the LMRA provided 

jurisdiction; however, the LMRA does not provide a statute of 
4

limitations period for moving to vacate an arbitration award. 

See, e.g., Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Cataneo Inc., 

990 F.2d 794, 799 (4th Cir. 1993). “To fill this void, courts 

must look to the most analogous state statute.” Id. The district 

court found South Carolina’s ninety-day statute of limitations,

S.C. Code Ann. § 15-48-130(b), which applies to motions to 

vacate an arbitration award, to be the most analogous state 

statute. See Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 877 F. Supp. 2d 

at 398. The district court relied on similar cases from this 

court that borrowed the statute of limitations from state

arbitration statutes when the dispute involved vacating an 

arbitration award. See id. at 397–98 & n.5. The district court 

found Maximum Air Flow had not challenged either arbitration 

award within the appropriate ninety-day period, and thus the 

statute of limitations barred vacating these awards. See id. at 

398.

Maximum Air Flow now appeals, arguing the district court 

erred in applying South Carolina’s ninety-day statute of 

limitations because the statute excludes direct application to 

collective bargaining disputes. The issue of the applicable 

statute of limitations is a legal matter, which we review de 

novo. See McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127, 

129 (4th Cir. 1994).
5

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district 

court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially 

on the reasoning of the district court’s order. Sheet Metal 

Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 877 F. Supp. 2d 392. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not 

aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED