FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT JUNE 7, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P U B 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- 12468

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 2 2 1 3 2 - CV - A SG I N A C I O E U F E M I O L O B O , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C E L E B R I T Y C R U I S E S , I N C ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

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

_________________________ ( J une 7, 2007) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B A R K E T T an d C O X , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B A R K E T T , C i rc ui tJudg e: I n a c io L o b o , a s ta te r o o m a tte n d a n t o n c ru is e s h ip s o p e r a te d b y C e le b r ity C rui s e s , I nc . ( “ C e l e br i ty ” ) , a ppe a l s the di s m i s s a l w i th pr e j udi c e of hi s c om pl a i ntThis Court reviews denovo a district cour t’s order compellingarbitration. Employers 1 Insuranc e of Wausau v. B right Metal Specialties, Inc., 251 F .3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2001). 2 f orunpa i d w a ge s a nd pe na l ty w a ge s br oughtunde rthe S e a m a n’ s W a ge A c t , 46 U . S . C . § 10313. T he di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d the c l a i m , f i ndi ng tha tthe C onve nt i on on the R e c ogni t i on a nd E nf or c e m e ntof

F or e i gn A rbi tr a l A w a r ds a nd i t s i m pl e m e nt i ng l e gi s l a t i on, 9 U . S . C . §§ 202- 208, s upe r c e de d the S e a m a n’ s W a ge A c t in th is c a s e a n d c o m p e lle d a rb itr a tio n . L o b o n o w a p p e a ls . 1 B AC KG RO UN D A s a s t a t e r oom a t t e nda nt , L obo w a s pa i r e d w i th a n a s s i s t a ntt o c om pl e t e the t as k o f c l ea ni ng ea ch pass enger cabi n abo ar d shi p. C el ebri ty r equi re d t hat s ta te r o o m a tte n d a n ts s h a r e g r a tu itie s w ith th e ira s s is ta n ts b y p a y in g th e m a t th e r a te of $1 . 20 per pas se ng erper day fr om thei r ow n ear ni ng s. L ob o al l eges that C e le b r ity h a s b e e n a b le to im p o s e th is r e q u ir e m e n t th r o u g h d u r e s s a n d a s a r e s u lt of the une qua l ba r ga i ni ng pos i t i on of the pa r t i e s , a nd tha tthi s r e qui r e m e nt c ons t i tut e s a f

a i l ur e t o pa y w a ge s i n vi ol a t i on of the c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a g r e e m e n t g o v e r n in g th e te r m s o f h is e m p lo y m e n t. L o b o s u e d in f e d e r a l c o u r t to enforce the paym entof w ages un der the col l ec t i ve bargai ni ng agre em entw hi ch p ro v id ed th at p as se n g er g ra tu it ies a re in clu d ed as p ar t o f a stater o o m atten d an t’ s p a y . C e le b r ity m o v e d to d is m is s L o b o ’s la w s u it o n th e g r o u n d s th a t, p u r s u a n t toIn rele vant par t, 46 U.S.C. §10313(f) provides that “ [a] t the end 2 of a voyag e, the maste r shall pay eac h seama

n the balanc e of w ag es due the seama n within 24 hours after

the ca rg o has been discharg ed or w ithin 4 day s after these aman is dis c ha

rg e d, wh ic he ve r i s e arl ie r. ” L ob o also so ught t o re c ov e r “pe nalty wag es” under 46 U.S.C. §10313(g ), which provides that “[w]hen pay ment is not made a s provided under

subsection (f) of this section without sufficient ca use, the ma ster o r o wn e r s hall p ay to t hese aman 2 da

y s'wag e s f

or e a c h d ay pa y me nt i s delayed.” 3 th e s a m e c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n t, h is w a g e c la im m u s t b e s e n t to a rbi tr a t i on. S pe c i f

i c a l l y , A r t i c l e 26 of

the c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e ntc ont a i ns a m a nda t or y a rbi tr a t i on pr ovi s i on pr ovi di ng tha tdi s put e s “ a r i s i ng on the ve s s e l s or i n c onne c t i on w i th thi s A gr e e m e nt ” “ s ha l l ” be s ubm i t t e d t o a rbi tr a t i on. L obo re spon ded t hatthe arbi tra t i on cl ause i n t he col l ec t i ve bargai ni ng agre em entw as i nv al i d b ec ause i tconfl i ct ed w i th b ot h t he S ea m an’ s W age A ctw hi ch gi ves s e a m e n th e r ig h t to a c c e s s f e d e r a l c o u r ts to r e s o lv e w a g e d is p u te s , 4 6 U .S .C . § 1 0 3 1 3 , an d th e S u p rem e C o u rt ’ s d eci si o n i n U . S . B u l k C arri ers, In c. v . A rg u el l es,

2 4 0 0 U .S . 3 5 1 ( 1 9 7 1 ) . In A rg u elles, th e C o u rt co n sid er ed w h eth er th e p ro v isio n s o f th e S ea m an ’s W a ge A c tw e r e di s pl a c e d by the s ubs e que nte na c t m e ntof the L a borM a na ge m e nt R el at i on s A ct(“ L M R A ”) , w hi ch “ prov i des a fe dera l re m edy t o enforce gri evance and arbi tra t i on prov i si on s of c ol l ec t i ve-bargai ni ng agre em ent s” i n com m er ci al i ndus tr i e s . 400 U . S . a t352. T he S upr e m e C our the l d tha tthe L M R A di d not abrogat e the S ea m an’ s W age A ctre m edy. S i m i l ar l y, L ob o argues that , un der4

A r gue l l e s , he i s e nt i t l e d t o s ue i n f e de r a l c our ti n l i e u of

a rbi tr a t i on pur s ua ntt o the S e a m a n ’s W a g e A c t. T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e

je c te d L o b o ’s a r g u m e n t a n d d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t, f in d in g th a t n e ith e rth e S e a m a n ’s W a g e A c t n o rA r g u e lle s a p p lie d to L o b o ’s c la im b e c a u s e e f

f e c tiv e ly s u b s e q u e n t to A r g u e lle s , th e U n ite d S ta te s b e c a m e o b lig a te d to abi de by t he i nt ernat i on al tre aty w here by st at es m ustre cogn i ze and enforce i nt e r na t i ona l a gr e e m e nt s t o a rbi tr a t e . T he tr e a ty a ti s s ue , the C onve nt i on on the R ec og ni t i on and E nforcement of Fo re i gn A rbi tra l A w ar ds (“ the C on vent i on ”) , b ecam e effecti v e i n th e U n i t ed S t at es o n D ecem b er 2 9 , 1 9 7 0 w h en C o n g ress pa s s e d i t s i m pl e m e nt i ng l e gi s l a t i on, 9 U . S . C . §§ 202- 208 ( t oge the rw i th the C onve nt i on, “ the C onve nt i on A c t ” ) . U nde rthe C onve nt i on, “ [ e ] a c h C ontr a c t i ng S ta te s h a ll r e c o g n iz e a n a g r e e m e n t in w r itin g u n d e rw h ic h th e p a r tie s u n d e r ta k e to s u b m it to a rb itr a tio n a ll o ra n y d if f e r e n c e s w h ic h h a v e a r is e n . . . b e tw e e n th e m in r e s pe c tof

a de f i ne d l e ga l r e l a t i ons hi p, w he the rc ontr a c tua l ornot , c onc e r ni ng a subj ec tm att ercapabl e of s ett l em entby arbi tra t i on . ” C on vent i on , A rt i cl e I I( 1). L obo a r gue s on a ppe a l , a s he di d be l ow , tha tnotw i ths t a ndi ng the C on vent i on , A rguel l es , as a m att erof l aw , re m ov es fr om the re ac h o f the C on vent i on al l cl ai m s broug htby se am en for unp ai d w ages and p enal ty w ages unde r§10313( f

) a nd ( g) . T he que s t i on of w he the rthe S e a m a n’ s W a ge A c tc a n beAs a thre shold matter, in makingthis determination, “a c ourt conduc ts ‘a ver y limit ed 3 inquiry .’” B autista v. Star Cruises, 396 F.3d 1289, 1294 ( 11th Cir. 2005) (quoting F ranc isco v. StoltAchieve ment MT, 293 F.3d 270, 273 ( 5th Cir. 2002)). This inquiry seeks to esta

blish four elements: an agree ment (1) in writing within the meaningof the Convention; (2) that provides for a rbitration in the territory

of a signatory

of the Convention; (3) that a rises out of a le g al relationship, whether contractual or not, that is considered c ommercial; and (4) with a pa rty that is not an America

n citizen, or wherethe commercial re lationship has some rea sonable re lation wi th o neor

more fo re ign s tate s. Se e id. at 12 94 n. 7; s e e a lso L im v . O ff sh ore Spe c ia lty F a bric ator s, Inc ., 40 4 F .3 d 8 98 , 9 03 (5 th C ir . 2 00 5) . T hedis tric t c ourt fo un d th at e a c h o f t

he se fo ur e le me nts weresatis fi e d in thi s c a se , a

nd L ob o d oe s n ot disp utethi s f indingon a pp e a l. Th e LMRAre qu ir e s th e e nf orc e me nt o f gri e va

nc e and arb itratio n p ro vis ion s in 4 collective ba

rg ainingagree ments. The primar y concern of this enforceme nt policy , as noted by the Court in Arguelles, wa s “on suits by and ag ainst labor unions” a nd “little attention was g iven to the asser

tion of claims by

individual employees.”400 U.S. at 355-56.

5 s upe r c e de d by a n a gr e e m e ntt o a rbi tr a t e w hi c h f a l l s unde rthe C onve nt i on i s one of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on. DI S CUS S I ON Ini t i al l y, w e not e thatthere i s no d i sput e her e thatthe arbi tra t i on prov i si on at is s u e f a lls u n d e rth e p u r v ie w o f th e C o n v e n tio n . I n s te a d , L o b o a r g u e s th a t h is 3 c l a i m i s e xe m ptf

r om the C onve nt i on, unde rthe a uthor i ty of A r gue l l e s . W e f

i nd L o b o ’s r e lia n c e o n A r g u e lle s to b e m is p la c e d . I n A r gue l l e s , a s e a m a n s ue d i n f e de r a l c our tf

orw a ge s , de s pi t e the a rb itr a tio n p r o v is io n in th e c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n t g o v e r n in g h is e m pl oy m e nt . A ti s s ue i n A r gue l l e s w a s t o w ha te xt e nt , i f a ny , the e nf

or c e m e nt m ec hani sm of t he L M R A re qu i re d t he pl ai nt i ff -s ea m an t o sub m i thi s s t atut ory 4 c la im f o rw a g e s to a rb itr a tio n a s p r o v id e d in h is c o lle c tiv e b a r g a in in g a g r e e m e n t.6

C i t i ng the l on gst andi ng hi st ory of the ri gh tof se am en t o b ri ng cl ai m s i n federa l c o u r t , th e Su p r e me Co u r th e l d th a t , i n th e a b s e n c e o f a n y s u g g e s t i o n i n th e LM RA thati tw as i nt ended t o sup er ce de t he ri gh tof i nd i vi du al se am en t o sue i n federa l c our tf orw a ge s , i tdi d nota ppl y t o the c l a i m s i n tha tc a s e . T he C our tdi d not m e n tio n th e C o n v e n tio n , m u c h le s s its a p p lic a b ility to A r g u e lle s ’ c la im . I n d e e d , it had n o o cc as i on t o d o so as the bri ef i ng and o ra l ar gu m enti n A rguel l es occurre d pri or t o t he i m pl em ent at i on of t he C on vent i on w hi ch w as ef fe ctuat ed on D ec em ber 29, 1970. T he opi ni on i n A r gue l l e s w a s i s s ue d onl y da y s l a t e ron J a nua r y 13, 1 9 7 1 . T h u s , w e a r e c o n v in c e d th a t th e C o u r t d id n o t h a v e th e o p p o r tu n ity to c o n s i d e rth e Co n v e n t i o n i n th e c o n t e x to f A r g u e l l e s ’ c l a i m. M oreover, the un derl yi ng basi s of the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s dec i si on i n A rguel l es w a s the f a c ttha tthe r e w a s nothi ng i n the l a ngua ge orl e gi s l a t i ve hi s t or y of the L M R A t o i nd i ca t e a n i nt entt o abrog at e the st atut ory r i gh tt o sue i n federa l court af forded by t he S ea m an’ s W age A ct . T he C ou rtno t ed t hatthe expl i ci tj ud i ci al r e m e dy of

the S e a m a n’ s W a ge a c tw a s not“ c l e a r l y t a ke n a w a y ” by the L M R A , a nd tha t , “ [ w ] ha tC ongr e s s ha s pl a i nl y gr a nt e d w e he s i t a t e t o de ny . ” A r gue l l e s , 400 U . S . at35 7. T he C ou rt ’ s r at i on al e w as cl ea r: the L M R A si m pl y a dd re ss ed r e s tr ic tio n s o n th e a c tiv itie s o f la b o ru n io n s ; s in c e th e h is to r y o f th e L M R A “is s i l e n to n th e a b r o g a t i o n o f e x i s t i n g s t a tu t o r y r e me d i e s o f s e a me n i n th e ma r i t i meIn Ba utista, seamen sue d their employer f or per sonal injuries occ urringonboard a 5 ve sse l. E a c h o f t

he se plaintiffs had pre viously agree d in their employ

ment contra cts that any disputes would be re solved via ar bitration. This court found the Convention applica ble, stating that “ thec rewm e mbers ’ a rb itratio n p ro vis ion s c on sti tut e c omm e rc ia l le g a l r e latio ns hip s w ith in the meaningof the Convention Act [and must be enf orce d].” Bautista, 396 F .3d at 1300. 7 f i e l d, w e c ons true i tt o pr ovi de onl y a n opt i ona l r e m e dy t o the m . ” I d. a t357. T he C o u rtco n cl u d ed th ati t“ w o u l d req u i re m u ch m o re t o h o l d th at§ 3 0 1 refl ect s a ph i l osop hy of l egal com pu l si on thatov er ri des the expl i ci tj ud i ci al re m edy provi ded by 46 U . S . C . § 596. ” I d. a t357- 58. I n c o n tr a s t, in r a tif

y in g th e C o n v e n tio n , C o n g r e s s e x p lic itly a g r e e d to “r e c o g n iz e a n a g r e e m e n t in w r itin g u n d e rw h ic h th e p a r tie s u n d e r ta k e to s u b m it to a rbi tr a t i on a l l ora ny di f f e r e nc e s w hi c h ha ve a r i s e n . . . be tw e e n the m i n r e s pe c tof a def i ned l egal re l at i on shi p, w het her c on tra ctual or no t , concerni ng a s ubj ec tm att er c a pa bl e of

s e t t l e m e ntby a rbi tr a t i on. ” C onve nt i on, A r t i c l e I I ( 1) . I nde e d, the C onve nt i on c om pe l s f

e de r a l c our t s t o di r e c tqua l i f y i ng di s put e s t o a rbi tr a t i on, w h ile th e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o u n d th e L M R A to b e s ile n t o n th is m a tte r . A lb e it n o t in the s a m e c ont e xta s i n thi s c a s e , w e ha ve ne ve r the l e s s he l d tha tthe i nt e ntof the C onve nt i on i s t o pr om ot e the r e c ogni t i on a nd e nf or c e m e ntof

a rbi tr a t i on pr ovi s i ons c ont a i ne d i n i nt e r na t i ona l c ontr a c t s , a nd tha t“ t o r e a d i ndus tr y - s pe c i f i c e xc e pt i ons i nt o the br oa d l a ngua ge of the C onve nt i on A c tw oul d be t o hi nde rthe C on vent i on ’ s purpo se . ” B aut i st a v. S t arC rui se s, 39 6 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 99 (200 5). 5In Sc he rk , a n a c tio n w a s b ro ught b y

an Ame ri c an c omp any

a g a ins t a Germ an c iti zen

to 6 rec over da

mag es and othe r re lief base d on a claim of fra ud and misrepresentation, in viol ation of theSe c uriti e s E xch ang e Ac t, i n a sa leof bu sin e ss agre e me nt. Th e de fend ant i n Sc he rk so ught t o sta y proc e e din g s whil e thepa rtie s arb itrate d th e dis pute , a s p ro vid e d b y thesa lec ontr a c t a s a me ans of se ttl ingany

dis pute s. Th e Sup re meCourt he ld t hat th e a gre e me nt o f t

hepa rtie s to arbitrate any

dispute arisingout of their international commerc ial transac tion mustbe enf orce d pursuant to the Convention. 8 T hi s vi e w i s c ons i s t e ntw i th S c he r k v. A l be r t o- C ul ve rC o. , 417 U . S . 506 (197 4), i n w hi ch t he S up re m e C ou rtdi d app l y the C on vent i on t o an i nt er nat i on al c o m m e r c ia l a g r e e m e n t. A s in B a u tis ta , S c h e r k d id n o t in v o lv e a c la im f o rw a g e s . 6 I n a ppl y i ng the C onve nt i on, how e ve r , the C our tf ound i tt o be “ s tr ongl y pe r s ua s i ve e vi de nc e of

c ongr e s s i ona l pol i c y ” i n f a vorof uni f or m e nf or c e m e ntof

a rbi tr a t i on agre em ent s, despi t e the po t ent i al pres ence of parochi al po l i ci es pres enti n o ther pa r t s of the U . S . C ode . I d. a t520 n. 15. T hus , t o nul l i f y the a rbi tr a t i on pr ovi s i on h e r e w o u ld h in d e rth e p u rp o s e o f th e C o n v e n tio n a n d s u b v e r t c o n g r e s s io n a l in te n t. A c c or di ngl y , f

orthe r e a s ons di s c us s e d a bove , w e f i nd tha tthe or de rof

the di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss i ng thi s c as e i n favor of arbi tra t i on m ustbe AF F I RME D.