and Butler ($665.60 for each member). Moorehead does not dispute the amounts owing as
calculated by the Union.

For these reasons, we grant the motion of the Union to enforce the arbitration award (#23)
and hereby enter judgment in favor of the Union in the amount of $ 35,850.74.

This case is hereby terminated and this is a final and appealable order.

It is so ordered.

Lye (#4

Wayne R. Andersen
United States District Court

Dated: 5 BAO 6



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

FIREMEN AND OILERS, LOCAL NO. 7,
S.E.L.U./N.C.F.O., AFL-CIO

Plaintiff,
v. 03 C 608
Wayne R. Andersen

WILLIAM MOOREHEAD AND ASSOCIATES, District Judge

wee ee eee

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION, AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on the motion of Plaintiff Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7,
S.E.LUJN.C.F.O. (“Union”) to enforce the arbitrator’s decision. For the following reasons, the
motion is granted.

BACKGROUND

On July 25, 2002, the Union arbitrated grievances filed by Willie Mackmore and Larry
Butler, who claimed that their employer, William Moorehead and Associates (“Moorehead”) had
laid them off on January 16, 2002 and February 19, 2002, respectively, in violation of the
collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) then in effect between the Union and Moorehead.

On September 20, 2002, the arbitrator issued his opinion and award in which he upheld
the grievances and found that Moorehead had violated the CBA by laying off Mackmore and
Butler. To remedy the contract violation, the arbitrator ordered Moorehead to reinstate
Mackmore and Butler to their former positions and to make them whole for any economic and
non-economic losses they may have suffered including, but not limited to, back pay, restoration

of benefits and restoration of seniority.


The Union then filed suit to enforce the decision of the arbitrator. On January 25, 2005,
this Court granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment and enforced the arbitrator’s award
against Moorehead. Moorehead is no longer operating and has not yet paid any back pay to
Mackmore and Butler. The Union then filed this motion to enforce the arbitrator’s decision by
requesting that the Court order Moorehead to pay $ 35,850.74 in back pay and trust fund
contributions for Mackmore and Butler.

DISCUSSION

Moorehead argues that requesting this Court to specify the amount of damages, when the
arbitrator’s award did not specify a specific amount, constitutes an impermissible modification
and/or a material change of the arbitration award. We disagree and find that we have the
authority to award a specific amount of damages in this case. The arbitrator’s award specifies
that the grievants, who were the subject of the arbitration hearing, are to be reinstated and made
whole. Moorehead is no longer operating and, therefore, the only alternative is for Moorehead to
comply with the arbitrator's make whole remedy.

In cases when the arbitrator fails to order a specific amount in damages, courts will
specify a monetary award if it is possible from the record to make such a determination. In
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Salesdrivers & Helpers v. Elglin Eby-Brown Co., 670 F, Supp. 1393,
1396 (N.D.IIL 1987), the court calculated the specific monetary award when the arbitrator
ordered back pay but did not specify an exact amount owed. The court held the plaintiff had
provided sufficient information for the court to be able to resolve the ambiguity in the arbitration
award. Jd. The plaintiff had provided the court with the employee’s affidavit which identified

the employee’s salary. The court held that the affidavit provided sufficient information with


which it could use to order a specific monetary award. /d.

Furthermore, Courts should resolve ambiguities in arbitration awards in the interest of
prompt and final arbitration. In Ethyl Corp. v. United Steelworkers of America, 768 F.2d 180,
187 (7" Cir. 1985), the court held that it is preferable “to resolve the case once and for all now,”
if possible. In that case, an arbitration award did not specify a monetary award. Rather, the
award merely stated that “the employees who were actively working at the time of the plant
closing on December 4, 1981, are entitled to vacation pay for 1982.” Jd. at 183. The Court
reasoned that because of the concern that some companies try to “reduce the credibility of unions
by dragging out the grievance process through challenges in court to arbitration awards,” the
procedure of remanding a case to the arbitrator for determination of specific monetary damages
should be avoided. /d. at 188. Although the award was unclear as to who and how much the
employees should receive, the court ordered a specific monetary award. /d. at 186.

Similarly, this Court has the authority and sufficient information to award a specific
monetary award. When the arbitrator awarded back pay to the grievants, “back pay” was the
amount of money that the Company and Union records determined were owed to Mackmore and
Butler. The Union provided the Court with the Declaration of Timothy Healy, President of the
Union, which provides a basis for the calculations of Willie Mackmore and Larry Butler's back
pay and trust fund contributions. Moorehead has not challenged the calculations and, thus, there
is no dispute as to the amount of back wages owed.

Based on the Union’s calculations, Moorehead owes Mackmore $ 19,624.20 in net back
pay and Butler is owed $ 14,895.34 in net back pay. Moorehead also owes a total of $ 1,331.20

in contributions to the Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 7 Pension Trust Fund for both Mackmore