FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T J UNE 22, 2012
J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
No. 1 1- 15 08 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
D.C. Dock et No. 1 :0 8- cv -0 32 24 -CAP

UNITED STEE L, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALL IED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE W ORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO-C LC, et a l.,

Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es ,

ve rs us

SMUR FIT-STONE CONTAINER CORP.,

Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ct of Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 2, 2 01 2)

Befo re EDMONDSON, JORDAN, an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.PER CURI AM:

Sm ur fit -St on e Co nt ai ne r Co rp or at io n ap pe al s fro m th e di st ric t co ur t’s

en fo rcem en t of an arb it ral jud gm en t an d award of pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t. W e affi rm ,

an d a dd res s t ho se is su es th at m eri t d is cu ss io n.

I

In e a r l y 2 0 0 5 Cl iff

or d Ada m s – a Sm

ur fit em pl oyee an d m em

be r of bo th th e

Uni te d St eel
, Pap er & Fo res try, Ru bb er, Man uf act ur in g, Ene rg y , All ie d In du st ria l, &

Serv ic e W or ke rs In te rn at io na l Uni on (USW) and Loca l 7 03 of t he USW – su ffer ed

a sh ou ld er in

jury at wor k. Mr. Ada m s – who ha d 19 y ears of s en io rit y at Sm ur fit ’s

Atl an ta East faci li ty– su bs eq ue nt ly fil ed a wor ke r s ’ co m pe ns at io n cl ai m , an d ha d

su rg ery on hi s ri gh t s ho ul de r in Ju ly of 20 05

.

Sm ur fit fir ed Mr. Ada m s in m id -Sep te m be r of 20 05 fo r pu rp or te dl y vi ol at in g

th e co m pa ny’s at te nd an ce po li cy

. Pu rs ua nt to th e go ve rn in g co ll ect iv e ba rg ai ni ng

ag reem en t (CBA)
, th e USW an d Loc al 70 3 fil ed a gr ie va nc e on Mr. Ada m s’ be ha lf

ch al le ng in g t he ter m in at io n.

In Octo be r of 20 07 th e arb it rat or su st ai ne d th e gr ie va nc e. The arb it rat or ru le d

th at Sm ur fit ’s di sc ha rg e of Mr. Ada m s vi ol at ed th e CBA, an d or de red th at Mr. Ada m s

be “i m m ed ia te ly rei ns ta te d wit h su ch acco m m od at io ns as are ne ces sa ry to em pl oy

2[h im ] in a co m pa rab le po si ti on , as ne arl y as po ss ib le
, to th e on e fro m whi ch he [was ]

di sc ha rg ed .” The arb it rat or fu rth er or de red t ha t Mr. Ada m s rece iv e “ al l ba ck pa y

whi ch he wou ld ha ve rece iv ed ha d he no t be en te rm in at ed to ge th er wit h a res to rat io n

of al l lo st se ni or it y ,” wit h a de du ct io n fro m ba ck pa y of a l l wor ke rs ’ co m pe ns at io n

be ne fit s an d/ or un em

pl oym en t pa y m en ts , as well as an y pa y m en ts rec e i v e d b y Mr.

Ada m s si nc e hi s te rm in at io n. The arb it r a t o r di d no t pr ov id e an y act ua l m on et ary

fig ur e fo r th e ba ck pa y award
, an d di d no t sa y an y th in g ab ou t pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t.

Alt ho ug h Arti cl e XX of th e CBA pr ov id es th at arb it rat io n is fin al an d bi nd in g

on th e u ni on , th e co m

pa ny, an d th e em

pl oyee, S m

ur fit di d no t rei ns ta te Mr. Ad am s

(th ou gh it di d pu t hi m ba ck on th e se ni or it y li st ), pu rp or te dl y be cau se it co nc l u d ed

th at it was im

po ss ib l e t o do so (i.e
., be cau se th ere was no acco m m od at io n whi ch

wou ld al lo w Mr. Ada m s to pe rfo rm an y job gi ve n hi s ph y si cal li m it at io ns ). Sm ur fit

al so di d no t gi ve Mr. Ada m s an y ba ck pa y

. Not su rp ris in gl y , th e USW an d Loc al 70 3

di sa gr eed wit h S m

ur fit ’s fai lu re t o c om

pl y wit h t he arb it rat io n a ward

.

In la te 20 07 an d earl y 20 08
, th e p a r t i es su bm it te d co rres po nd en ce to th e

arb it rat or – who ha d ag reed to ret ai n juri sd ic ti on to as si st th e pa rti es in im pl em en ti ng

th e award – co nc ern in g th ei r on go in g di sp ut e. In Feb ru ary of 20 08
, th e arb it rat or

de cl ared th at th e pa rti es ha d reac he d an im pa ss e, st at ed th at hi s award was “ cl ear an d

co nc is e,” an d de cl in ed to ex erci se co nt in ui ng juri sd ic ti on ov er th e m at te r. In a

3fu rth er effo rt to res ol ve th ei r di sp ut e, th e pa rti es ag reed to to ll th e rel ev an t st at ut es

of li m it at io n un ti l Octo be r 22
, 20 08
, bu t th ey were no t ab le to co m e to an ag reem en t.

Se e Co m pl ai nt at ¶ 15 ; An swe r an d Aff irmativ e Defen se s at 5 ¶ 1 5.

The USW an d Local 70 3 fil ed su it ag ai ns t Sm ur fit in fed eral di st ric t cou rt on

Octo be r 15
, 20 08
, al le gi ng th at th e co m pa ny ha d br each ed th e CBA by no t co m pl y in g

wit h th e arb it rat io n award

. The y req ue st ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t de cl a r e t he

arb it rat io n award bi nd in g, en fo rce th e award
, req ui re Sm ur fit to co m

pl y wit h it
, an d

or de r al l ap pr op ria te eq ui ta bl e an d le ga l rel ie f in li gh t of Sm ur fit ’s br each

. The

la wsu it was fil ed pu rs ua nt to § 30 1 o f th e Lab or Man ag em en t Rel at io ns Act, 29

U.S.C. § 18 5, whi ch pr ov id es di st ric t co ur ts wit h, am on g ot he r th in gs , su bjec t-matte r

juri sd ic ti on to en te rta in an act i o n b y an em pl oyee or un io n ag ai ns t an em pl oyer to

en fo rce a n a rb it rat io n a ward whi ch is fin al an d b in di ng pu rs ua nt to th e te rm s of t he

CBA. Se e, e.g ., Gen

. Dri ver s, W ar eh ou se men & Help er

s, Lo ca l Uni on No

. 89 v. Ris s

& Co

., 37 2 U.S. 51 7, 51 9 (1 96 3) ; Dia z v. Sc hw er man Tr uc ki ng Co

., 70 9 F.2d 13 71
,

13 74 (1 1 Ci r. 19 83 ); Tr uc k Dri ver s & Help er

s Lo ca l Uni on No

. 7 2 8 v. Geo rg ia th

Hig hw ay Exp re ss , In c., 32 8 F

. 2 d 9 3
, 9 5 -9 6 (5 Ci r. 19 64 ). Sm ur fit di d no t fil e an th

in de pe nd en t act io n or co u n t e r c l a im to va cat e th e arb it rat io n award by Octo be r 22
,

20 08
, th e da te to ll in g en de d. In st ead
, it fil ed it s an swe r an d affi rm at iv e de fen se s on

Decem be r 19 , 20 08

.

4The di st ric t cou rt ul ti m at el y gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t in fav or of th e USW

an d Loc al 70 3. It he ld th at Sm ur fit ha d waiv ed al l arg um en ts co nc ern in g th e va li di ty

of th e arb i t r a t i o n award by fai li ng to fil e a ti m el y act io n or co un te rcl ai m se ek in g

va cat ur o f t h e a w a r d. It al so co nc lu de d, ba se d on th e reco rd be fo re it , t ha t Sm ur fit

ha d fai le d to “ ad op t an acco m m od at io n to al lo w [Mr .] Ada m s to wor k wit hi n hi s

ph y si cal res tri ct io ns an d d id no t fin d wor k fo r hi m to pe rfo rm .” It ex pl ai ne d th at

Sm ur fit ’s im po ss ib il it y arg um en t was not pe rs ua si ve “ be cau se ev id en ce s up po rti ng

an im po ss ib il it y

de fen se was a va il ab le to th e arb it rat or at t he ti m e o f arb it rat io n.”

Sm ur fit req ue st ed th at th e di st ric t co ur t rem an d th e m at te r to th e arb it rat or fo r

a cal cu la ti on of ba ck pa y an d ot he r be ne fit s, bu t th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed th e req ue st

.

In st ead
, aft er su pp le m en ta l br ie fin g, th e di st ric t co ur t award ed Mr. Ada m s

$2 14 ,98 1.0 6 in ne t ba ck pa y (in cl ud in g pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t as cal cu la te d by a rat e

se t by th e Nati on al Lab or Rel at io ns Bo ard ) an d or de red Sm ur fit to cred it Mr. Ada m s

wit h th e y ears of se rv ic e be twee n th e ti m e of hi s te rm in at io n an d hi s rei ns ta te m en t in

Ja nu ary of

20 11

. This ap pe al by Sm ur fit fol lo wed

. 1

II

“ On

. . . ap pe al of a di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to co nf irm or va cat e an arb it rat io n

1 Smurfit had reinstated Mr. Adams in J anuar y of 2011, while the lawsuit was pending befor e the district cour

t.

5award , we rev ie w t he di st ric t co ur t’s res ol ut io n o f q u e s ti on s of la w de no vo an d it s

fin di ng s o f f

a c t fo r cl ear erro r.” Rin ti n Co rp

. S.A. v. Doma r Lt d., 47 6 F.3 d 12 54
,

12 58 (1 1 Ci r. 20 07 ). W e ex erci se pl en ary rev ie w wit h res pe ct to th e di st ric t co ur t’s

th

gr an t of su m

m ary jud gm en t. Se e, e.g ., Gis h v. Th oma s, 51 6 F.3 d 95 2, 95 4 (1 1 Ci r. th

20 08 ). The di st ric t cou rt’s award of pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t is rev ie wed fo r ab us e of

di sc ret io n. Se e, e.g ., W

er ne r Ent er

pr is es , In c. v. W

es tw in d Mar it ime In t’l

, In c., 55 4

F.3 d 1 31 9, 1 32 8 (1 1 Cir . 20 09 ). th

A

Sm ur fit fir st arg ue s th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d in gr an ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t

in fav or of th e USW an d Loc al 70 3 be cau se , as a m at te r of la w, it co ul d no t rei ns ta te

M r

. Ada m s to a co m

pa rab le po si ti on

. Sm

ur fit co nt en ds th at , at th e ti m e o f t h e

arb it rat io n award
, Mr. Ada m s ha d be en di ag no se d as pe rm an en tl y di sa bl ed an d was

no t ab le to li ft m or e th an 10 -1 5 p ou nd s.

W e ne ed no t ad dr es s th is arg um en t. Und er Elev en t h C i r cu it pr eced en t, an

em pl oyer se ek in g to va cat e an ad ve rs e arb it rat io n award ari si ng ou t of a CBA un de r

§ 30 1 of th e LMRA m

us t ch al le ng e th e award th ro u g h jud ic ia l act io n wit hi n th ree

m on th s or “ el se be ba rred fro m rai si ng an y de fen se s to th e award .” Se e Uni te d St eel

,
Pap er & For es tr

y, Rub be r, Mfg

. , Ene rg

y, All ie d In du s. & Se rv

. W or ker s In t’l Uni on

AFL-CIO v. W

is e All oy s, LLC, 64 2 F .3d 13 44 , 13 52 -5 3 (1 1 Cir . 20 11 ) (b or ro win g th

6th ree- m on th li m it at io ns pe rio d fr om § 1 2 o f th e Fed eral Arbi tra ti on Act, 9 U.S.C. §

12 ). Bec au se an ag gr ie ve d em p l o yer “ m ay no t wait to at ta ck th e award in a

su bs eq ue nt su it to co nf

irm th e award aft er th e st at ut e of li m it at io ns ha s ru n,” se e id

.

at 13 52
, Sm

ur fit ’s “ im

po ss ib il it y ” arg um en t is ti m e-b arre d an d we de cl in e to ad dr es s

it

.

B

Sm ur fit al so co nt en ds th at th e di st ric t co ur t erre d by no t rem an di ng th e m at te r

ba ck to th e arb it rat or an d by ad dr es si ng is su es pr op erl y le ft to th e arb it rat or (e.g
., th e

m et ho do lo gy fo r co m

pu ti ng ba ck pa y , th e am ou nt of ba ck pa y , an d th e award of pr ejud gm en t in te res t). The USW an d Loc al 70 3 res po nd th at th e di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng

sh ou ld be affi rm ed fo r a nu m be r of reas on s. F i rs t, th e ba ck pa y was pr op erl y

cal cu la te d ba se d on Mr. Ada m s’ own po si ti on (rat he r th an t ha t of an y co m pa rab le

po si ti on ) gi ve n th at Mr. Ada m s ha d be en rei ns ta te d by Sm ur fit be fo re th e co nc lu si on

of th e la wsu it

. Seco nd
, th e di st ric t co ur t ha d di sc ret io n to award pr e- ju d gm en t

in te res t (an d di d no t ab us e th at di sc ret io n) in li gh t of Sm ur fit ’s fai lu re to co m

pl y wit h

th e arb it rat io n a ward

.

“ As a ge ne ral ru le an arb it rat io n award req ui rin g rei ns ta te m en t an d ba ck pa y ,

bu t le av in g th e cal cu la ti on of th e am ou nt of ba ck pa y to th e pa rti es , is co n si de red

fi n a l an d en fo rcea bl e. If th e pa rti es can no t ag ree on th e am ou nt of ba ck pa y ,

7ho wev er, th e no rm al co ur se of act io n is to tre at th e award as am bi gu ou s or in co m

pl et e

an d rem an d th e di sp ut e to t h e o r i g in al arb it rat or to cl ari fy th e award .” Alu min um

Bri ck & Gla ss W

or ker s In t’l Uni on v. AAA Plu mbi ng Pot te ry Co rp ., 99 1 F.2 d 15 45
,

15 49 (1 1 Ci r. 19 93 ) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Alt ho ug h th ere are a nu m be r of de ci si on s th

ad he rin g t o t hi s “ no rm al co ur se ” o f act io n, th ey do no t re qu ire rev ers al he re. 2

As an in it ia l m at te r , w e do no t be li ev e th at th e award of ba ck pa y was

am bi gu ou s. The arb it rat or d i d n o t s im pl y award ba ck pa y in th e ab st ract , bu t

ex pl ai ne d th at Mr. Ada m s was “ en ti tl ed to rece iv e al l ba ck pa y whi ch he wou ld ha ve

rece iv ed ha d he no t be en te rm in at ed ,” m in us an y wor ke rs ’ co m pe ns at io n be ne fit s or

ot he r pa y m en ts rece iv ed by him , “ to ge th er wi th a res to rat io n t o a ll lo st sen io rit y .”

Had Mr. Ada m s no t be en im pr op erl y te rm in at ed
, he wou ld ha ve co nt in ue d rece iv in g

hi s reg ul ar sa la ry , an d th eref or e th at sa la ry was pr op erl y us ed by th e di st ric t co ur t to

co m pu te th e ba ck p a y. In th e wor ds of Sa n Ant on io New sp ap er Gui ld

, 48 1 F.2 d at

2 See, e.g., San Antonio Newspaper Guild Local No. 25 v. San Antonio Light Div., 481 F.2d 8 2 1
, 8 2 5 -2 6 (5 Cir. 1973) (noting that rema nd is normal course of action, but declining to t h

rema nd beca use second arbitra tor had resolved ambig uity i n fi rst arbitra tor’s awa rd); American Fed’n of State, County, & Mun. Employe es Local Lodge No. 1803 v. W alker County Med. Ctr., Inc., 715 F.2d 1517, 1519 (11 Cir. 1983) (requiring rema nd to arbitrat o r fo r cl ar ification of what was t h
meant by reinstateme nt of employ ee t o “s u i t ab le position”); Bake ry, Confectionary & Tobacco W orkers L ocal Un i o n N

o

. 3 62-T v. Brow n and W illiamson Tobacco C orp., 971 F.2d 652, 655-56 (11 Cir. 1992) (holding that district court did not err in rema nding ambig uous awa

rd to arbitra tor). t h But cf. American Airline Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 632 F.2d 1321, 1323 (5 Cir. t h 1980) (stating, i n context of arbitration order under the Railway L abor Act, that district court wa s “not fre e to re mand bec ause the order was view ed as a

mbiguous” ).

882 5, it wou ld ha ve be en a “ po in tl es s g es tu re” to rem an d th e m at te r to th e arb it rat or

fo r su ch a m at he m at ic al co m pu ta ti on

. Se e al

so Aero na ut ic al Mac hi ni st s v. Lo ckh eed

Geo rg ia Co

., 19 82 W L 17 25 21
, *5 (1 1 Ci r. 19 82 ) (u np ub li sh ed ) (d is tri ct co ur t erre d th

in rem an di ng m at te r ba ck to arb it rat or whe re award was “ un eq ui vo cal ” an d was no t

so va gu e an d a m

bi gu ou s s o a s t o b e “ in cap ab le of e nf or cem en t” ).

In ad di ti on , th e arb it rat or h a d al read y to ld th e pa rti es – whe n th ey co ul d no t

a g r e e a s to whe th er Sm

ur fit was ab le to rei ns ta te Mr. Ada m s – th at hi s awa r d w a s

cl ear, th at th e pa rti es ha d reac he d a n i mpas se , an d th at he de cl in ed to ex erci se an y

fu rth er juri sd ic ti on ov er th e m at te r. Und er th es e ci rcu m st a n c e s , th e di st ric t co ur t

can no t be faul te d for c on cl ud in g t ha t a rem an d was no t requ ire d and /o r wou ld ha ve

pr ov en in effe ct iv e.

Fi na ll y , we no te th at th e di st ric t co ur t an no un ced it s de ci si on no t to rem an d th e

m at te r to th e arb it rat or fro m th e be nc h a f t er he ari ng or al arg um en t on Mar ch 17
,

20 11

. Se e Doc ke t Ent ry 55 (Mi nu te Ent ry ) (“ The Co ur t wil l no t se nd pa rti es ba ck to

arb it rat io n.” ). Bec au se th e di st ric t co ur t’s la te r writ te n or de r do es n o t co nt ai n an y

fu rth er ex pl an at io n fo r it s de ci si on , we as su m e th at th e rat io na l e f o r t h e ru li ng was

co nv ey ed or al ly to th e pa rti es at th e he ari ng

. W e can no t, ho wev er, pro pe rly rev ie w

th at rat io na le be cau se Sm ur fit di d no t or de r a tra ns cri pt of th e he ari ng , an d as a res ul t

th ere is no tra ns cri pt in th e reco rd on ap pe al

. As we hav e sa id be fo re, “ th e bu rd en

9is on th e ap pe ll an t to en su re th at th e reco rd on ap pe al is co m pl et e, an d whe re a fai lu re

to di sc ha rg e th at bu rd en pr ev en ts us fro m rev ie win g th e di st ric t cou rt’s dec is io n we

or di na ril y wil l affi rm th e jud gm en t.” Se lma n v. Co bb Co un ty Sc ho ol Dis t., 44 9 F.3 d

13 20 , 13 33 (11 Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ti ng cas es ). th

C

Turn in g to th e di st ric t co ur t’s award of pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t on ba ck pa y , we

fin d no rev ers ib le erro r. As a ge ne ral m at te r, a di st ric t co ur t’s award of pr e-ju dg m en t

in te res t is rev ie wed fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n, whi ch m ean s th at th e di st ric t co ur t ha s

a “ ran ge of ch oi ces it m ay m ak e an d st il l be affi rm ed .” Bla sl an d, Bou ck, & Lee, In c.

v. Ci ty of N. Mia mi, 28 3 F.3 d 12 86
, 12 98 (1 1 Ci r. 20 02 ). The LMRA doe s no t say th

an y th in g ab ou t pr e-ju d g m en t in te res t, bu t th e Su pr em e Co ur t ha s in st ru ct ed th at

whe re fe d e r a l l a w i s si le nt on th e is su e, co ur ts m ay award pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t in

res po ns e to co ns id erat io ns of fai rn es s, se e Bla u v. Leh man , 36 8 U.S. 40 3, 41 4 (1 96 2)
,

an d th e fo rm er Fi fth Ci rcu it
, in Oil

, Ch em. & Ato mic W

or ker s In t’l Uni on , Lo ca l No

.

4- 44 7 v. Ameri ca n Cya na mid Co

., 54 6 F.2d 11 44 , 11 44 (5 Cir

. 19 77 ), ap pl ie d th is th

ge ne ral ru le to th e LMRA, al be it in a no n- arb it rat io n co nt ex t

. R e l e va nt fo r ou r

pu rp os es are se ve ral cas es ho ld in g t h a t , i n an LMRA en fo rcem en t act io n, a di st ric t

co ur t ha s th e au th or it y to award pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t on an arb i t r at or ’s ba ck pa y
jud gm en t. Se e, e.g ., Qua ker Oat s Co

. v. In t’l Ch emic al W or ker s Uni on , 19 93 W L

1047 19 9, *3 (6 Ci r. 19 93 ); Vra bl e IV, In c. v. SEIU Dis t. 11 99

, 7 8 4 F

. S u p p .2d 84 6, th

85 4 (S.D. Ohi o 20 11 ); Mil lc ra ft -S MS Se rv ic es , LLC v. Uni te d St ee l Wo r k er s of

Ameri ca , 34 6 F .Su pp .2d 11 76 , 11 86 -8 7 (N.D. Ala . 20 04 ).

Aga in st th is ba c k g r o u n d
, an d gi ve n th e ab se nc e of au th or it y fo rb id di ng an

award of pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t in LMRA en fo rcem en t cas es , th e di st ric t co ur t act ed

wit hi n it s di sc ret io n in a w ard in g pr e-ju dg m en t in te res t. Fo r m or e th an th ree y ears

Sm ur fit fai le d to rei ns ta te Mr. Ada m s or gi ve hi m th e ba ck pa y to whi ch th e arb it rat or

sa id he was en ti tl ed
, th ereb y de pr iv in g hi m of su bs ta nt ia l in co m e fo r a lo ng pe rio d

of ti m e. The di st ric t co ur t co ul d ha ve eas il y reas on ed th at i t w as fai r to award pr ejud gm en t in te res t so th at Mr. Ada m s wou ld be m ad e who le wit h res pe ct to ba ck pa y

. Cf

. In t’l Uni on of Dis tr ic t 50

, Uni te d Min e W or ker s of Ameri ca v. Bow man Tr an sp

.

In c., 42 1 F.2 d 93 4, 93 5 (5 Ci r. 19 70 ) (d is tri ct co ur t ha s di sc ret io n, in LMRA th

en fo rcem en t act io n, to award at to rn ey ’s fees an d co st s if “ a pa rty wit ho ut jus ti fic at io n

refu se d t o a bi de by the award of a n a rb it rat or ”).

III

The di st ric t co ur t’s ru li ng s an d ju dg m en t ar e aff irmed.



### AFFIRMED.

11