FILED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IR C U IT April 4, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ 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. 07- 12624 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 0 0 6 8 8 - CV- J - 3 3 - TE M B R OT HE R HO OD OF L OC OMOT I VE E NG I NE E R S AN D T R AI NME N GE NE R AL C OMMI T T E E OF AD J US T ME NT C S X T R AN S P OR T AT I ON N O R T H E R N L I N E S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s C S X T R A N S P O R T A T I O N , 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 M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A p r i l 4, 2008) B efo re B IR C H , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. B IR C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: T hi s app ea l un der the R ai l w ay L abor A ct , 45 U . S . C . § 1 51 , etse q. (“ R L A ”) ,2

concerns w hen an enforcemen tac t i on ac crues und erthe st atut e of l i m i t at i on s a ft er an arbi tra t i on aw ar d and , al t ernat i vel y, w hether a re qu es tfor i nt erpret at i on of an a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d t ol l s the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od. F ol l ow i ng a n a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d, the un i on soug htt o enforce the aw ar d i n d i stri ctcourt . T he di stri ctj ud ge det er m i ned tha tthe uni on’ s pe t i t i on w a s out s i de the tw o- y e a r , s t a tut or y l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od a nd di s m i s s e d the e nf

or c e m e nta c t i on, w hi c h ha s pr e s e nt e d f i r s t - i m pr e s s i on i s s ue s f

or o u rc ir c u it. W e a f

f ir m . I . B AC KG RO UN D O n N o v e mb e r1 9 , 2 0 0 2 , T. R. Pi t z e n , e mp l o y e d b y d e f e n d a n t - a p p e l l e e , CSX T r a n s p o r ta tio n , I n c . ( “C S X ” ) , c la im e d a b s e n c e f r o m w o r k b e c a u s e o f

a n o f f - d u ty n eck i n j u ry. C S X d i d n o tq u est i o n th e l eg i t i m acy o f P i t zen ’ s cl ai m . A ft er n earl y a thr e e - w e e k a bs e nc e , P i t z e n t ol d a s upe r vi s ortha t , dur i ng the pe r i od w he n he su p p o sed l y w as u n ab l e t o o p erat e trai n s, h e h ad d ri v en fro m O h i o t o P an am a C i ty, F l ori da, part i ci pat ed i n a karat e t ou rnam ent , and w on the heavy-w ei gh tt i t l e a tthat t o u r n a me n t . Be c a u s e h i s c l a i me d i n j u r y a b s e n c e w a s u n d e rf a l s e p r e t e n s e s , CSX c h a r g e d Pi t z e n w i th d i s h o n e s ty a n d t e r mi n a t e d h i m. O n be ha l f

of P i t z e n, pl a i nt i f

f - a ppe l l a nt , B r othe r hood of L oc om ot i ve E ngi ne e r s a nd T r a i nm e n G e ne r a l C om m i t t e e of A dj us t m e ntC S X T r a ns por t a t i on N o r th e r n L in e s ( “B L E T ” ) , c h a lle n g e d h is d is m is s a l a n d r e q u e s te d h isThe RLA g overns labor relations in the railroad industry and pre scribes ma

ndatory 1 proce dures f

or the re solution of disput es. Minor disputes ariseunder c ollective barg aining a gre e me nts inv olv inge mpl oye egri e va nc e s, wh ic h s e e k to e nf

orc ec ontra c tual rights or

to resolve dif

fering inter

pretations of an awa

rd. Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Railway L abor Ex ecutives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 302, 109 S.Ct. 2477, 2480 (1989); Empresa Ecuatoriana de Aviacion, S. A. v. District L odg e No. 100, 690 F .2d 838, 843 (11 Cir. 1982). Minor disputes th include disputes over

a ca rrier ’s right to discipli ne employees under the ter ms of a collec tive b arg a i n i n ga gr e e m e nt . M art i nv . Am e ri c anA i rl i n e s , In c . , 3 9 0 F . 3 d 6 0 1 , 6 0 7 ( 8 C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) . If

th the par ties cannot re solve minor disputes, then either pa rty may submit the dispute to final and binding a rbitration. 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (i); seeConsolidated Rail Corp., 491 U.S. at 303, 109 S.Ct . at 2481; Empresa

Ecuatoriana deAviacion, 690 F .2d at 844. Such ar bitration can oc cur before the Na

tional Railroad Adjustment Boa rd (“NRAB” ), a permane nt arbitration board established by

the RLA, 45 U.S.C. § 153 First. Alternatively , arbitration can occur bef ore a n arbitration board that the c arrier a nd union cre ate. 45 U.S.C. § 153 Second. The se alter native boards a re c ommonly

ref erred to as Public L aw B oards, whic h consist of representatives designated by

the ca rrier and the union and a

neutral arbitrator . 45 U.S.C. § 153 S econd; International Bhd. of E lec. Worker s v. CSX Transp., Inc., 446 F .3d 714, 717 (7th Cir. 2006). BLET and CSX cre ated Public L aw B oard N o. 5959 to arbitratespecifie d labor disputes betwe en them. 3 r e i ns t a t e m e nt . P ur s ua ntt o the pa r t i e s ’ c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e nta nd a s e pa r a t e a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e nttha te s t a bl i s he d P ubl i c L a w B oa r d 5959 ( the

“ B oa r d” ) , the pa r t i e s r e f e r r e d P i t z e n’ s c l a i m t o the B oa r d. A n a rbi tr a t or 1 d et erm i n ed th atC S X h ad th e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g th atP i t zen h ad b een d i sh o n est r e g a r d in g h is a b s e n c e b e c a u s e o f h is a lle g e d in

ju r y a n d th a t it h a d f

a ile d to c a r r y its bu rden. O n Jun e 2, 20 04 , the arbi tra t or sust ai ned P i t ze n’ s c l ai m and o rder ed c o m p lia n c e w ith in th ir ty d a y s . C S X r e in s ta te d P itz e n b u t d id n o t p a y h im b a c k w a g e s f o rth e p e r io d o f

h is di sm i ss al . O n A ug ust19 , 20 05 , B L E T se nta l ett ert o C S X and d em anded b ac k pay f or P i t ze n. C S X re spon ded t hatthe aw ar d d i d n otre qu i re the paym entof back4

w a ge s . F orm or e tha n a y e a r , B L E T di d nothi ng. I n N ove m be r2005, B L E T s e nt tw o m or e l e t t e r s t o C S X de m a ndi ng ba c k pa y f orP i t z e n. C S X r e s ponde d by rep eat i n g i t s p o si t i o n th atth e aw ard d i d n o ti n cl u d e b ack p ay. O n F e brua r y 9, 2006, B L E T r e que s t e d tha tthe a rbi tr a t orc l a r i f y w he the rthe a w a r d r e qui r e d pa y m e ntof ba c k w a ge s . B L E T ha d f i r s ta c know l e dge d the pot e nt i a l ne e d f

ors uc h a c l a r i f

i c a t i on i n i t s i ni t i a l l e t t e ron A ugus t19, 2004, but d e l a y e d m a k i n g i t s r e q u e s tf o ra n i n t e rp r e t a t i o n f

o ra n o th e rs i x t e e n m o n th s . On A pr i l 7, 2006, the a rbi tr a t orc l a r i f i e d tha t , a l though the a w a r d di d notpr ovi de f or ba c k w a ge s e xpr e s s l y , the t e r m s of the pa r t i e s ’ c ol l e c t i ve ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e nt r e qui r e d the m . N one the l e s s , B L E T w a i t e d a l m os tf ourm or e m onths be f

or e f i l i ng i t s pet i t i on for e nforcement w i th t he di stri ctcourton A ug ust1, 20 06 . In l i eu of an answ er , C S X m ov ed t o d i sm i ss un der F eder al R ul e of C i vi l P roce du re 12 (b)( 6), be c a us e the tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons ba r r e d B L E T ’ s pe t i t i on t o e nf or c e the a w a r d.O n the f

a c t s pl e d i n B L E T ’ s pe t i t i on, the di s tr i c tj udge c onc l ude d tha tthe ca u se o f a ctio n fo r e n fo rc em en t acc ru ed o n Ju ly 3 , 2 0 0 4 , an d g ra n ted C S X ’s m ot i on. T he j udge a ddi t i ona l l y de c i de d tha tthe B oa r d ha d i s s ue d a n i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the a w a r d unde r45 U . S . C . § 153 F i r s t( m ) , w hi c h di d nott ol l the s t a tut e of l i m i t at i o n s. A cco rd i n g l y, th e d i stri ctj u d g e d et erm i n ed th atB L E T fi l ed i t s A u g u st5

1 , 2 0 0 6 , p e titio n o u ts id e th e tw o - y e a rlim ita tio n s p e r io d a n d d is m is s e d th e a c tio n . B L E T has app ea l ed thatorder. I I . DI S CUS S I ON A . S t andards of R evi ew P re vai l i ng part i es un der P ub l i c L aw B oards c an enforce aw ar ds i n federa l di stri ctcourt . 45 U . S . C . § 1 53 F i rs t(p). In re vi ew i ng a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss un der R ul e 12(b)(6), the st andard of revi ew “ i s the sa m e f or the appel l at e c ou rtas i tw as f orthe tr i a l c our t . ” S t e phe ns v. D e pa r t m e ntof H e a l th & H um a n S e r vs . , 901 F . 2d 1571, 1573 ( 11 C i r . 1990) . W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tj udge ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng a m ot i on th un der R ul e 12(b)(6) de no vo . S pa i n v. B r ow n & W i l l i a m s on T oba c c o C orp. , 363 F . 3d 1183, 1187 ( 11 C i r . 2003) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . W e a c c e ptthe a l l e ga t i ons i n the th c om pl a i nta s true a nd c ons true the m i n f a vorof the pl a i nt i f

f . H i l l v. W hi t e , 321 F . 3d 1334, 1335 ( 11 C i r . 2003) ( pe rc ur i a m ) . A R ul e 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s a l “ on th s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons gr ounds i s a ppr opr i a t e onl y i f i ti s ‘ “ a ppa r e ntf

r om the f a c e of th e co m p l ai n t ”’ th atth e cl ai m i s t i m e-b arred . ” T el l o v . D ean W i t t er R eyn o l d s, I n c ., 4 1 0 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 8 8 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) ( c ita tio n s o m itte d ) . th We r e v i e w de no vo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s l e ga l de t e r m i na t i on c onc e r ni ng the a va i l a bi l i ty of

e qui t a bl e t ol l i ng. D r e w v. D e pa r t m e ntof C or r s . , 297 F . 3d 1278, 1 2 8 3 ( 1 1 C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . I n c o n tr a s t, th e a p p lic a tio n o f th a t la w to th e p a r tic u la rf a c ts th6

i s r evi ew ed for a bu se of di sc re t i on . A rc e v. G ar ci a, 43 4 F . 3d 12 54 , 12 60 (11 C i r. th 20 06 ). T here i s a n abu se of di sc re t i on w hen a di stri ctj ud ge base s hi s or her d e c is io n o n f

a c tu a l f in d in g s th a t a r e c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s . I d . B . A c c rua l of

C a us e of

A c t i on T he r e i s no di s put e tha tthe tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons c ont a i ne d i n 45 U . S . C . § 1 53 F i rs t(r ) app l i es t o B L E T ’ s a ct i on . T hi s app ea l concerns w hen B L E T ’ s e nf

or c e m e ntc a us e of

a c t i on unde r45 U . S . C . § 153 F i r s t( p) a c c rue d f or the purpos e of

c a l c ul a t i ng the runni ng of the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons . B e c a us e the a w a r d s pe c i f

i c a l l y s t a t e s tha tC S X ha d t o c om pl y w i thi n thi r ty da y s , a nd the da t e of the a w a r d w a s J une 2, 2004, the di s tr i c tj udge c onc l ude d tha tB L E T ’ s e nf or c e m e nt c a us e of a c t i on a c c rue d on J ul y 3, 2004. S i nc e B L E T di d notf i l e i t s pe t i t i on f

or e n f o r c e m e n t u n til A u g u s t 1 , 2 0 0 6 , th e ju d g e d is m is s e d B L E T ’s c la im a s u n tim e ly . T h e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s f

o rR L A e n f

o r c e m e n t a c tio n s s ta te s th a t “[ a ]ll a c t i ons a tl a w ba s e d upon the pr ovi s i ons of thi s s e c t i on s ha l l be be gun wi th i n two ye ars f rom the t i m e the cause of act i on accr ues unde rthe a w a r d of the di vi s i on of th e A d ju s tm e n t B o a r d , an d n otaf t er .” 4 5 U .S .C . § 1 5 3 F ir s t ( r ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ) . T o d et erm i n e w h en an en fo rcem en tcau se o f act i o n accru es, th e st atu t e p ro v i d es:

I f a c a r r i e rdoe s notc om pl y w i th a n or de rof a di vi s i on of

the A dj us t m e ntB oa r d w i thi n the t i m e l i m i t i n such o rder , the pet i t i on er , ora ny pe r s on f

orw hos e be ne f

i ts uc h or de rw a s m a de , m a y f i l e i n the D is tr ic t C o u r t o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s . . . a p e titio n s e ttin g f o r th b r ie f

ly7

the c a us e s f

orw hi c h he c l a i m s r e l i e f , a nd the or de rof

the di vi s i on of the A dj ust m entB oard i n t he prem i se s. S uch sui ti n t he D i stri ctC ou rt o f th e U n i t ed S t at es sh al l p ro ceed i n al l resp ect s as o th er ci v i l su i t s, e xc e pttha ton the tr i a l of s uc h s ui tthe f

i ndi ngs a nd or de rof

the di vi s i on of

the A dj us t m e ntB oa r d shal l be concl usi ve on the pa rt i es . .

. . 4 5 U . S . C . § 1 5 3 F i rst(p ) (em p h asi s ad d ed ). T h e p l ai n l an g u ag e o f th ese prov i si on s m akes the ca rr i er ’ s f ai l ure t o com pl y w i thi n t he t i m e l i m i tes t abl i shed by the a w a r d the tr i gge r i ng e ve ntf ora n e nf or c e m e nta c t i on a nd the runni ng of the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons . B L E T ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on, tha t“ the r e i s a c a us e of a c t i on f or enforce m entof an aw ar d, no tw hen an aw ar d i ss ues, or even w hen i tbecom es ef fe ct i ve, bu tw hen t he ca rr i erre fuse s t o com pl y w i th t he aw ar d, ” A pp el l ant ’ s B r. at1 0 , d i sreg ard s th e su b seq u en tcl ari fyi n g st atu t o ry p h rase t h ata carrier m u st com pl y “ w i thi n t he t i m e l i m i ti n such o rder , ” 45 U . S . C . § 1 53 F i rs t(p). T he pri m ary pri nci pl e of s t atut ory c on struct i on re qu i re s c ou rt s t o g i ve ef fe ct t o t he pl ai n m ea ni ng of the w ords used “ i n t hei r ordi nary and u sual se nse. ” C a m i ne t t i v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 242 U . S . 470, 485- 86, 37 S . C t . 192, 194 ( 1917) . T o the e x te n t p o s s ib le , th e ru le s o f s ta tu to r y c o n s tru c tio n r e q u ir e c o u r ts to g iv e m e a n in g to e ve r y w or d a nd c l a us e i n a s t a tut e . U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M e na s c he , 348 U . S . 528, 538- 3 9 , 7 5 S .C t. 5 1 3 , 5 2 0 ( 1 9 5 5 ) ; T R W I n c . v . A n d r e w s , 5 3 4 U .S . 1 9 , 3 1 , 1 2 2 S .C t. 44 1, 44 9 (20 01 ). A dd i t i on al l y, court s m ustre j ec tst atut ory i nt erpret at i on s that w ou l d render port i on s of a st atut e s urpl usage. T R W , 53 4 U . S . at31 , 12 2 S . C t . at8

4 4 9 . C o n s e q u e n tly , th e p la in m e a n in g o f “w ith in th e tim e lim it in s u c h o r d e r ” in § 153 F i r s t( p) i s tha ta c a us e of a c t i on t o e nf

or c e a n a w a r d a r i s e s a tthe e nd of the tim e lim it s e t f

o r th in th a t a w a r d . B y r e q u ir in g a c a r r ie rto c o m p ly b y a d a te ce rt ai n, the R L A prov i des pl ai nt i ff s w i th a basi s t o d et er m i ne w hether they have a c a u s e o f a c tio n f o re n f o r c e m e n t. N o c o m p lia n c e b y th e r e q u is ite d a te in d ic a te s th a t a p o te n tia l p la in tif

f h a d tim e to a c q u ir e s u f f ic ie n t f a c tu a l k n o w le d g e f

o rr e a s o n a b le i nqui r y t o r e ve a l the c a us e of a c t i on. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. K ubr i c k, 444 U . S . 111, 122- 2 4 , 1 0 0 S .C t. 3 5 2 , 3 5 9 - 6 0 ( 1 9 7 9 ) . I n th is c a s e , B L E T h a d r e a s o n a b le b a s is to know tha tC S X w a s notgoi ng t o pa y P i t z e n ba c k w a ge s w he n i tdi d notdo s o by Ju l y 2 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d at e sp eci fi ed i n th e aw ard fo r co m p l i an ce. C o n seq u en t l y, B L E T ’ s c ause of ac t i on ac crued o n t he dat e f ol l ow i ng the deadl i ne for c om pl i ance s t a t e d i n the a w a r d, orJ ul y 3, 2004, a s the di s tr i c tj udge c or r e c t l y de t e r m i ne d. O the rc i r c ui t s ha ve i nt e rpr e t e d § 153 F i r s t( p) l i t e r a l l y a nd s tr i c t l y a s di d the di s tr i c tj udge i n thi s c a s e . S e e L e ka s v. U ni t e d A i r l i ne s , I nc . , 282 F . 3d 296, 300 ( 4 C i r . 2002) ( r e c ogni z i ng tha t“ the f a i l ur e t o c om pl y w oul d ha ve oc c ur r e d w hen th p a y me n t w a s n o t ma d e w i th i n th a t

s p e c i f i e d t i me ” ( em ph as i s a dd ed)) ; T ra nspo rt at i on C om m c’ ns Int ’ l U ni on v. C S X T ra nsp. , Inc. , 30 F . 3d 90 3, 90 5 (7 th C i r . 1994) ( “ T C I U ” ) ( “ A s a ge ne r a l rul e , a c a us e of a c t i on a c c rue s f

orpurpos e s ofTh eSixth C irc uit a ff ir me d a dis tric t c ourt ’s de te rm inatio n th at 2 It is c le ar a

nd un ambi guo us that th eCon gre ss intend e d th at c arrie rs and its e mpl oye e s, throu gh th e ir

un ion s o r o therw ise , s ho uld bee nc ourag e d to avo id industrial strife by

setting up spe cial boards of adjustment to determine disputed c laims ari sin gfrom t

heint e rp re tatio n o f c oll e c tiv eba rg a ininga gre e me nts then in eff ect be tween thecar

rier a nd the union; that such special boards’ jurisdiction wa s to be limited to the jurisdiction conferred thereupon by agree ment of the c arrier and union; that compliancewith the awa rds of thesespecial boards should be enforced in United States district c ourts in the same manner and subjec t to the same proc eeding s for e nforc ement of c ompliance therewith as ha d earlier been provided for

enforcement of compliancewith awards of the National Railroad Ad jus tment B oa

rd ; and that therig

ht o f ac tio n to enfo rc esu c h c om plian c esh ou ld accrueon the date fixed by the spec ial boards as ‘. . . the time limit . . .’ for such compliance . Switchmen’s Union of N. Am. v. Cli nchfie ld R.R. C o., 310 F. Supp. 606, 610 (E.D. T enn. 1969) (quoting45 U.S.C. § 153 First (p)) ( omissions in orig inal) (e mphasis added) , aff ’d, 427 F .2d 161 (6 Cir. 1970). th 9 subd i vi si on (r ) upo n a ca rr i er ’ s non -c om pl i ance a t th e tim e fix e d fo rc o m p lia n c e in th e a w a rd . ” ( e m pha s i s a dde d) ) ; J oi ntC ounc i l D i ni ng C a rE m pl oy e e s L oc a l 370, H ot e l & R e s t a ur a ntE m pl oy e e s I nt ’ l A l l i a nc e v. D e l a w a r e , L . & W . R . C o. , 157 F . 2d 417, 420- 21 ( 2d C i r . 1946) ( c onc l udi ng tha tthe c a us e of a c t i on a c c rue d the da y a f t e rthe da t e s pe c i f

i e d i n the a w a r d f

orc om pl i a nc e ) . T he s e c ons i s t e nt 2 i nt e rpr e t a t i ons i n othe rc i r c ui t s notonl y a r e s uppor t e d by the c l e a rm e a ni ng of the s t a tut or y t e xtbuta l s o a r e j us t i f i e d by pol i c y c ons i de r a t i ons unde r l y i ng s t a tut e s of lim ita tio n s . W ith s ta tu te s o f lim ita tio n s , le g is la tu r e s d e te r m in e th a t “‘th e r ig h t to be fr ee of st al e c l ai m s i n t i m e c om es t o p re vai l ov erthe ri gh tt o p rose cut e them . ’ ” K ubr i c k, 444 U . S . a t117, 100 S . C t . a t357 ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d) . “ S t a tut e s of10

l i m i t a t i ons a r e nota rbi tr a r y obs t a c l e s t o the vi ndi c a t i on of j us tc l a i m s , a nd the r e f or e the y s houl d notbe gi ve n a grudgi ng a ppl i c a t i on. T he y pr ot e c ti m por t a nt soci al i nt er es t s i n cer t ai nt y, ac cura cy , and repose. ” C ada v. B axt erH ea l thcar e C orp. , 92 0 F . 2d 44 6, 45 2-53 (7 C i r. 19 90 ) ( P osner, J. ). T yi ng the ac crual of an th en fo rcem en tact i o n t o th e sp eci fi c t i m e setfo rth i n th e aw ard en su res th atth ese i nt er es t s a re se rved and g uara nt ee s thatbo th t he po t ent i al pl ai nt i ff and t he ca rr i er k n o w th e e a r lie s t a n d la te s t d a te th a t a n e n f o r c e m e n t a c tio n c a n b e in s titu te d . R a i l r oa d Y a r dm a s t e r s of N . A m . v. I ndi a na H a rborB e l tR . R . C o. , 166 F . 2d 326, 3 2 9 ( 7 C ir . 1 9 4 8 ) .

th S i gni f i c a nt l y , thi s de f

i ni t e s t a nda r d s e r ve s the pol i c y c ons i de r a t i ons unde r l y i ng the R L A . O ne of the s t a t e d obj e c t i ve s of the R L A i s “ t o pr ovi de f orthe prom ptand o rder l y s ett l em ent ” of r ai l w ay l abor di sput es . 45 U . S . C . § 1 51 a( 5). In enac t i ng the R L A , “ C on gres s e nd ea vo re d t o p rom ot e s t abi l i ty i n l aborm a na ge m e ntr e l a t i ons i n thi s i m por t a ntna t i ona l i ndus tr y by pr ovi di ng e f f e c t i ve a nd e f f i c i e ntr e m e di e s f

orthe r e s ol ut i on of

r a i l r oa d- e m pl oy e e di s put e s a r i s i ng out of the i nt e rpr e t a t i on of

c ol l e c t i ve - ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e nt s . ” U ni on P a c . R . R . C o. v. S h e e h a n , 4 3 9 U .S . 8 9 , 9 4 , 9 9 S .C t. 3 9 9 , 4 0 2 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . T h e s p e c if ic l i m i t at i o n s p eri o d est ab l i sh ed b y th e d i stri ctj u d g e’ s i n t erp ret at i o n o f § 1 5 3 F i rst ( p) pr om ot e s e f

f i c i e nc y a nd pr e ve nt s l a bordi s put e s c onc e r ni ng thi s i s s ue . S e e i d.Whil eB LETc ite s L e ka s, it f a ils to n otethat th eawa

rd in L e ka s did n ot s tatea

date 3 cer tain for the c arrier to comply . 282 F.3d at 299. It was the a bsenceof a date certain that led the L ekas plaintiff to argue that a c ause of action to enf

orcea RLA awa

rd ac crue s when a plaintiff has some other

basis to discover the wrong ful ac t that justi fies the c ause of action. The Four th Circuit and all of the pa rties in L ekas recognized that, if the adjustment board ha d r e qu i r e d th ec ar ri e r t o c o mp l y “ withi n a specified time , the failure to comply would have oc c ur re d whe n p ay

me nt w a s n ot m a dewi thin th at sp e c if ie d ti me ,”and

thec a us eof a c tio n w ou ld have accr ued when the date f

or complianc e had pa ssed. I d. at 299-300 (emphasis added) . L ekas is inapposite beca

use the a ward at issue in this case did spec ify a time for c ompliance. BLET also cites the Seventh Circuit’s Railroad Yardmasters de cision for the proposition that th e reis n o c a

us eof a c tio n und e r § 15 3 F ir st (p) “ wh e n a n a wa rd is n ot c le ar, no t su ff

ic ie ntly definite, or there is a dispute a s to what is require d.” Appe llant’s Br . at 14. In Railroad Yardmasters, howe ver, theadjustment board ha d not set a datecer tain in the challeng ed arb itratio n a

wa rd . 1 66 F .2 d at 32 8. B e c a us e§ 1 53 F ir st (p) c on fers jurisdic tio n u po n th ec ourt s to enf orc ea RLA a wa rd “ on ly on thec ontin g e nc y

of no n- c omp lia

nc ewi thin th etim elim it provided in the order,” theSeventh Circuit conclude d “that an action for enforc ement ca nnot be maintained upon an order which fixes no tim e limit for compliance .” I d. at 329. That c ourt explained that § 153 First (p) “require s that a time limitbe fixed in the order” and that, wherea fix ed time appe ars, the c ause of action for

enforcement “would ac crueupon non-complianc e at the time fixed.” I d. (empha sis added). The Seve nth Circuit in R ailroad Y ardma sters also af firmed the district judg e’s dismissal of the e nforc ement ac tion becausethe awa rd wa s not sufficiently

definite to per

mit enforcement. 166 F.3d at 329-31. But this was a n alternative basis for a ffirma nce, separate and distinct from the argument that the plaintiff’s c laims werebarred by the statute of limitations. I d. There fore , it does not support BLET’s contention that its causeof ac tion for enf orce ment did not accr

ue until after the B oard issued its interpre tation of the aw ard. 11 at95 , 99 S . C t . at40 3 (A det er m i nat i on than an em pl oyee “ had n otfi l ed hi s app ea l w i thi n the t i m e r e qui r e m e nt s of the c ol l e c t i ve - ba r ga i ni ng a gr e e m e nt. . . i s f i na l a nd b in d in g u p o n th e p a r tie s a n d n e ith e rth e D is tr ic t C o u r t n o rth e C o u r t o f A p p e a ls h a d a u th o r ity to d is tu rb it.” ) . B L E T ha s noti de nt i f

i e d a ny a uthor i ty tha ts uppor t s a n a c c rua l rul e di f f e r e nt fr om the di stri ctj ud ge’ s app l i ca t i on of § 1 53 F i rs t(p). A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ct 3 j udge di d note r ri n c onc l udi ng tha tC S X f a i l e d t o c om pl y w i thi n the t i m e pe r i od12

s p e c i f i e d i n th e a w a r d . Be c a u s e th e a w a r d i n th i s c a s e e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e d a t i me f orc om pl i a nc e , the r e l e va nta uthor i ty s uppor t s the J ul y 3, 2004, a c c rua l da t e a nd s u b s ta n tia te s th e d is tr ic t ju d g e ’s d is m is s a l. T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t ju d g e c o r r e c tly de t e r m i ne d tha tB L E T ’ s c a us e of a c t i on a c c rue d w he n C S X r e f us e d t o pr ovi de b ack p ay b y th e d at e st at ed fo r co m p l i an ce i n th e arb i trat o r’ s aw ard . B ecau se B L E T w ai t ed m ore than t w o yea rs af t erthatdat e t o fi l e i t s pet i t i on , the di stri ct j ud ge prop er l y di sm i ss ed B L E T ’ s e nforcement ac t i on as barr ed by the tw o-ye ar s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . C . E ffecto f R eq u estfo r In t erp ret at i o n o n S t atu t e o f L i m i t at i o n s B L E T a l t e r na t i ve l y a r gue s tha t , e ve n i f i t s c a us e of

a c t i on a c c rue d on J ul y 3, 2 0 0 7 , th e d i stri ctj u d g e st i l l erred i n d i sm i ssi n g th e case b ecau se B L E T ’ s req u est for a n i nt erpret at i on fr om the B oard as t o w hether C S X had t o p ay back w ages t ol l e d the runni ng of

the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons . E qui t a bl e t ol l i ng i s a f or m of e xtr a or di na r y r e l i e f

tha tc our t s ha ve e xt e nde d “ onl y s pa r i ngl y . ” I r w i n v. D e p a r tm e n t o f

V e te r a n s A f

f a ir s , 4 9 8 U .S . 8 9 , 9 6 , 1 1 1 S .C t. 4 5 3 , 4 5 7 ( 1 9 9 0 ) . I t is

“ ‘ approp ri at e w hen a m ov antun t i m el y f i l es beca use of extra o rd i n a ry ci rc um stan ce s th a t a r e b o th b e y o n d h is c o n tr o l a n d u n a v o id a b le e v e n w ith di l i ge nc e . ’ ” A r c e , 434 F . 3d a t1261( quot i ng S a ndvi k v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 177 F . 3d 1269, 1271 ( 11 C i r . 1999) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ) ; s e e O ut l e rv. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 485 F . 3d th13

1273, 1280 ( 11 C i r . 2007) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ( “ E qui t a bl e t ol l i ng i s onl y a va i l a bl e i f the th p e titio n e re s ta b lis h e s ( 1 ) e x tr a o r d in a r y c ir c u m s ta n c e s a n d ( 2 ) d u e d ilig e n c e .” ) .

“ T he pl ai nt i ff

bear s the bu rden of show i ng thatsuch ext ra ordi nary ci rc um st ance s e x is t.” A r c e , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 1 . T h e d is tr ic t ju d g e e x p la in e d th a t B L E T “f a ils to a lle g e a n y e x tr a o r d in a r y c ir c u m s ta n c e s b e y o n d its c o n tr o l a n d u n a v o id a b le w ith d ilig e n c e th a t p r e v e n te d it f r o m f ilin g its a c tio n w ith in th e lim ita tio n s p e r io d . I ns t e a d, B L E T r e l i e s on the a r gum e nttha tthe f i l i ng of a r e que s tf

ori nt e rpr e t a t i on t ol l s the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons . ” R 1- 19 a t10. R e que s t s f

ori nt e rpr e t a t i ons a r e notunc om m on i n R L A a rbi tr a t i on proceedi ng s. 45 U . S . C . § 1 53 F i rs t(m ). S i gn i fi ca nt l y, B L E T coul d h ave s ou gh tan i nt e rpr e t a t i on w he n C S X s how e d tha ti tdi d noti nt e nd t o pa y P i t z e n ba c k w a ge s by n o t d o in g s o b y J u ly 2 , 2 0 0 4 , th e d a te o f c o m p lia n c e s p e c if

ie d in th e a w a r d . A d d itio n a lly , C S X c la r if ie d th a t it d id n o t b e lie v e th a t th e a w a r d r e q u ir e d it to m a k e a p a y m e n t o f

b a c k w a g e s in th e O c to b e r6 , 2 0 0 4 , le tte rth a t it s e n t to B L E T . N on ethel es s, B L E T w ai t ed un t i l F ebruary 9, 20 06 , t o requesti nt erpret at i on . E ven w h e n th e a rb itr a to ris s u e d a n in te rp r e ta tio n o n A p r il 7 , 2 0 0 6 , B L E T w a ite d u n til A u g u st 1 , 2 0 0 6 , t o file it s p etit io n fo r e n fo rc em en t. T h es e d elay s s h o w B L E T ’s la c k o f d ilig e n c e a n d s u c h la c k o f d ilig e n c e is in im ic a l to a r e q u e s t f o rto llin g . A r c e , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 1 , S a n d v ik , 1 7 7 F .3 d a t 1 2 7 1 ; O u tle r , 4 8 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 8 0 .14

“ [F ] or st atut e of l i m i t at i on s purpo se s[ , ] a pl ai nt i ff’ s i gn orance of hi s l egal r i ght s a nd hi s i gnor a nc e of the f a c tof hi s i nj ur y ori t s c a us e s houl d [ not ] r e c e i ve i dent i ca l tre atm ent . ” K ub ri ck, 44 4 U . S . at12 2, 10 0 S . C t . 35 9; L ekas , 28 2 F . 3d at 30 0. T he det er m i nat i ve fa cti s w hether the pl ai nt i ff had k no w l edge of t he harm i ncurred. B L E T kn ew w hen P i t ze n d i d n otre ce i ve back w ages t o w hi ch he w as e n title d w ith in th e tim e th a t th e a w a r d e s ta b lis h e d f o rc o m p lia n c e . B L E T c oul d ha ve pur s ue d a n i nt e rpr e t a t i on w hi l e i ts oughtt o e nf or c e the a w a r d. E nf

or c e m e nta nd i nt e rpr e t a t i on pr oc e e di ngs s houl d pr oc e e d s e pa r a t e l y a nd si m u l t an eo u sl y. G reatN o rth ern R y. C o . v . N at i o n al R . R . A d j u st m en tB d . , F i rst D i v. , 422 F . 2d 1187, 1194 ( 7 C i r . 1970) ; a c c or d T C I U , 30 F . 3d a t907 n. 2. T he th S e ve nth C i r c ui te xpl a i ne d “ tha tthe tw o pr oc e dur e s [ e nf or c e m e nta nd i nt erpret at i on ] shou l d p roce ed i nd ependent l y of, and si m ul t aneousl y w i th, ea ch ot her. ” G re atN orthern, 42 2 F . 2d at11 94 . W hen t hese tw o act i on s proce ed t oge the r , the § 153 F i r s t( m ) pr oc e e di ngs w i l l r e s ul ti n a n i nt e rpr e t a t i on of the a w a r d w hi c h the pa r t i e s c a n m a ke a va i l a bl e t o the c our ti n the e nf or c e m e nta c t i on, w hi c h “ i s pr e c i s e l y w ha tthe s t a tut e c ont e m pl a t e s ” by notdi s m i s s i ng the enforce m entac t i on despi t e the § 1 53 F i rs t(m ) i nt erpret at i on re qu es t . Id. “ T he fa ct th a t [ th e c a r r ie r ] m a y h a v e b e e n s e e k in g c la r if ic a tio n f r o m th e B o a r d to s u p p o r t its p o si t i o n d o es n o tam o u n tt o ev i d en ce t h at[th e carrier] ei th er co n ceal ed [p l ai n t i ff’ s]See, e.g ., TCIU, 30 F.3d at 906 (“Subdivision (m) states unequivocally that a ‘c opy

of 4 the awa rds shall be fur

nished to the respe ctive par ties to the controver sy , and the awards shall be fin al a nd bin ding u po n b oth pa rti es to thedis pu te .’ 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (m) ( emphasis adde d). Clearly , Congress meant a n awa rd to be final and binding at this poi nt.”); Gatlin v. Mi ssouri Pac. R.R. C o., 631 F.2d 551, 555 ( 8 Cir. 1980) (re cognizi ngthat, beca use of “ [t ]he strict finality of th Railway L abor A ct B oard de cisions and the nar row scopeof re view g iven district courts[,] . . . . [n] o circumstance

s whatsoever ex ist for extension of the limitat ions period and the de cision of Public L aw B oard 596 must be de emed f inal. Appellants’ a ction for review of that decision as ag ainst [the railroad compa ny] i s time barre d.” (e mphasis added) ).

15 cau se o f act i o n o r cau sed [p l ai n t i ff] t o m i ss a fi l i n g d ead l i n e, ” an d , co n seq u en t l y, doe s notj us t i f

y e qui t a bl e t ol l i ng. L e ka s , 282 F . 3d a t301. B e c a us e B L E T s ought an aw ar d i nt erpret at i on di d n otpreventi tfr om si m ul t aneousl y f i l i ng an e nf or c e m e nta c t i on t o pr ot e c ti t s r i ght s . T he r e f or e , B L E T ’ s r e que s tf

or i nt e rpr e t a t i on di d notj us t i f y e qui t a bl e t ol l i ng, be c a us e i tha d notm e ti t s bur de n of s how i ng tha te xtr a or di na r y c i r c um s t a nc e s e xi s t e d. A r c e , 434 F . 3d a t1261. T o de t e r m i ne w he the re qui t a bl e t ol l i ng i s a ppr opr i a t e , “ [ t ] he ba s i c que s t i on .

. . i s one ‘ of

l e gi s l a t i ve i nt e ntw he the rthe r i ghts ha l l be e nf or c e a bl e . . . a f

t e rthe p r e s c r i b e d t i me . ’ ” I d . ( q u o t i n g Bu r n e t tv . N e w Y o r k Ce n t . R. R. Co . , 3 8 0 U . S. 4 2 4 , 4 2 6 , 8 5 S .C t. 1 0 5 0 , 1 0 5 3 ( 1 9 6 5 ) ) ( s e c o n d o m is s io n in o r ig in a l) ; s e e M id s ta te H or t i c ul tur a l C o. v. P e nns y l va ni a R . R . C o. , 320 U . S . 356, 360, 64 S . C t . 128, 130 ( 1943) ( “ I tdoe s notf

ol l ow . . . tha tC ongr e s s di d noti nt e nd the l i m i t a t i on [ pe r i od] t o be a bs ol ut e . ” ) . T he r e f or e , f e de r a l c our t s ha ve r e f

us e d t o t ol l the s t a tut e of lim ita tio n s p e r io d e s ta b lis h e d b y § 1 5 3 F ir s t ( r ) . T h e R L A “s h o u ld b e lite r a lly 4 a ppl i e d i n the a bs e nc e of a c l e a rs how i ng of

a c ontr a r y orqua l i f

i e d i nt e nt i on of16

C ongr e s s . ” B r othe r hood of R . R . T r a i nm e n v. C hi c a go R i ve r& I nd. R . R . C o. , 353 U . S . 30, 35, 77 S . C t . 635, 637 ( 1957) . U nde ra s tr i c ti nt e rpr e t a t i on of § 153( r ) , the S e c ond C i r c ui tc onc l ude d: T h is is a p a r t o f

th e [ R L A ] s e ttin g u p a s p e c ia lly c o n s titu te d b o a r d to d e a l w ith th e s o - c a lle d m in o rd is p u te s o f th e in d u s tr y — g r ie v a n c e s in the i nt erpret at i on or appl i ca t i on of em pl oym entagre em ent s. A s a n i nt egra l partof thi s s ys t em , C on gres s gave the em pl oyee s a spec i al a nd f a vor a bl e s t a tut or y r e m e dy , t o be e xe r c i s e d w i thi n tw o y e a r s “ a nd nota f t e r , ” a pe r i od of

e nf or c e d i na c t i on f

orthe e m pl oy e r , dur i ng w hi c h he c a nnotobt a i n e ve n a de c l a r a t i on of hi s r i ght s unde rthe o r ig in a l a g r e e m e n t. W e th in k , th e r e f o r e , th a t a c o u r t is n o t ju s tifie d in f i ndi ng any ex c e

pt i on t o, orex t e ns i on of , this pe r i od . J oi ntC ounc i l , 157 F . 2d a t420 ( quot i ng 45 U . S . C . § F i r s t153( r ) ) ( c i t a t i on om i t t e d) (e m ph as i s a dd ed). I n th e c o n te x t o f

A d ju s tm e n t B o a r d a w a r d s , th e f o r m e rF if

th C ir c u it c o n c l u d e d “ th a twh i l e C o n g r e s s d i d n o tf o r e s e e th i s e x tr a s t a tu t o r y m o d e o f r e v i e w, it w a s its in te n tio n th a t al l m e thods o f rev i ew i n g N R A B aw ard s b e b arred u n l ess

‘ begu n w i thi n t w o yea rs fr om the t i m e the ca use of a ct i on ac crues und erthe aw ar d

. . . , and n otaf

t er . ’ ” G i bson v. M i ss ou ri P ac . R . R . C o. , 44 1 F . 2d 78 4, 78 8 (5 th C i r . 1971) ( quot i ng 45 U . S . C . § 153( r ) ( e m pha s i s a dde d) . A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the ov er al l sc hem e of the R L A , the S event h C i rc ui tspec i fi ca l l y det er m i ned t hatthere w a s a pol i c y i n f

a vorof the f i na l i ty f ora rbi tr a t i on a w a r ds a nd “ de c l i ne [ d] the U ni on’ s i nvi t a t i on t o c r e a t e a n e xc e pt i on t o f i na l i ty w he r e a r e que s tf orAlthough B LET argues that the Six th Circuit’s decision in J ones v. Seaboa rd Sy stem 5 Railroad, 783 F .2d 639 (6 Cir. 1986), where the plaintiff sought reviewof a RLA awa rd under th 45 U.S.C. § 153 First (q), e stablishes a basis for tolling its claims, J ones is inapposite. Unlike § 153 First (p) , which provide s for the enforc ement of a wards, paragraph ( q) allows for limit ed revie w of RLA ar

bitration awa

rds by district courts. The Six th Circuit rejec ted the plaintiff’ s reque st and found that the plaintiff’ s claim ac crue d when the a rbitrator issued a

n awa rd aff irming theemployee’ s dismis sal, and the plaintiff failed to seek revie w within the two-year limit ations period esta

blished by

§ 153 First (r). I d. at 642-43. In makingthis determination, the Six th Circuit explained in dictum that the only way the plaintiff could have esc aped thestatute of limit ations was to have“filed a motion to reconsider w ithin the two-year period, thereby

tolling the time limit ation.” I d. at 643. As theSe ve nth

Circ uit , h a s e xplaine d, theJone s dictum was incor rec t. TCIU, 30 F.3d at 90 6 n .1 . T hat dictum wa s p remis e d o n s e e kin ga motion fo r re c on sid e ra

tio n o f a n Inters tate Commerce Commission order; the Interstate Commerc e Ac t permits parties to petition for re c on sid e ratio n. Inters tateComme rc eComm’ n v . B ro therh oo d o f L oc omo tiv eEn g ’r s, 48 2 U .S. 270, 277-78, 107 S.Ct. 2360, 2365 (1987); J ones, 783 F .2d at 643. In contra st, the RLA does not provide for

motions for rec onsideration. TCIU, 30 F.3d a t 906. Requests for interpretation under theRLA § 153 Fir st (m), like the re quest in this case, a re not a pposite to moti ons for re c on sid e ratio n in

no n- RLA c a se s. I d. at 90 6 n .1 . Unli kea motion fo r re c on sid e ratio n, a

re qu e st for inter pretation does not present the “possibili ty that the orde r complaine d of will be modified or cha ng ed in a wa

y that will either render review . . . unne cessa ry or, on re view, pre sent . . . a decision and/or suppor

ting rationale diff

erent than that ref

lected in the original order.”I d. at 906 (citation omitted). 17 i nt erpret at i on i s m ade duri ng the l i m i t at i on s per i od ” bef ore a pl ai nt i ff

fi l es an enforce m entac t i on . T C IU , 30 F . 3d at90 7. U si ng thi s “ hi gh l y per suas i ve” r e a s oni ng, the di s tr i c tj udge pr ope r l y c onc l ude d tha t“ the tw o- y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons f

ound i n U . S . C . § 153 F i r s t( r ) i s nott ol l e d by a r e que s tf or i nt erpret at i on . ” R 1-19 at11 (quo t i ng T C IU , 30 F . 3d at90 7). 5 S ec t i on 15 3 F i rs t(m ) “ st at es un equi vo ca l l y” thatR L A arbi tra t i on aw ar ds ar e fi nal w hen i ss ued b y the arbi tra t or. 45 U . S . C . § 1 53 F i rs t(m ); T C IU , 30 F . 3d at 90 6. R equest s f

or i nt erpret at i on pu rs uantt o § 15 3 F i rs t(m ) do n otaf fe ctthat fi nal i ty. W hi l e s ub se ct i on (m ) provi des a rbi tra t ors the po w ert o i nt erpretfi nal18

aw ar ds, i tdo es no tgi ve them the po w ert o al t eror m od i fy them w hat soever . S ee i d. (c i t i ng U ni t ed T ra ns. U ni on v. S oo L i ne R . R . C o. , 45 7 F . 2d 28 5, 28 7 (7 C i r. th 1 9 7 2 ) ) . C o n s e q u e n tly , a n in te rp r e ta tio n r e q u e s t d o e s n o t a f f e c t th e e n f

o r c e a b ility of a n a w a r d a nd doe s nothi nde rthe pur s ui tof a n e nf or c e m e nta c t i on unde r§ 153 F i r s t( p) . B L E T s houl d ha ve f i l e d i t s e nf

or c e m e nta c t i on pr i ort o ors i m ul t a ne ous w i th i t s r e que s tf

ori nt e rpr e t a t i on. I t s de l a y i n s e e ki ng a n e nf or c e m e nta c t i on b a r r e d B L E T ’s a c tio n u n d e rth e tw o - y e a rs ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s a n d is f

a ta l to its c a s e . I I I . CONCL US I ON B L E T ha s c ha l l e nge d the di s m i s s a l of i t s c a us e of

a c t i on f ore nf or c e m e ntof th e a rb itr a tio n a w a r d b e c a u s e o f th e e x p ir a tio n o f

th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s . A l t e r na t i ve l y , B L E T c ont e nds tha ti t s i nt e rpr e t a t i on r e que s tt ol l e d the runni ng of the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s. A s w e have expl ai ned, i n acc ord w i th t he vi ew of ot her c i r c ui t s tha tha ve a ddr e s s e d the s e i s s ue s , a n i nt e rpr e t a t i on r e que s tdoe s nott ol l the ru n n in g o f

th e s ta tu te o f

lim ita tio n s , w h ic h h a d e x p ir e d w e ll b e f o r e B L E T f

ile d its e n f o r c e m e n t a c tio n . T h e d is m is s a l o f B L E T ’s a c tio n b y th e d is tr ic t ju d g e is A F F I R M E D .