Opinion ID: 508502
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: B & B's Breach of the Pre-Hire Agreement

Text: 33 Also in this appeal, the union argues for the first time that it is entitled to monetary damages, as well as the collateral estoppel remedy discussed earlier, for B & B's alleged breach of the pre-hire agreement. The union asserts that its members are entitled to a back pay remedy flowing from the employer's failure to either notify the union of vacancies or to notify the local that pre-apprentices had been hired. Brief of Appellants at 23. We decline to reach this issue because it was not raised before the district court. As noted earlier, the complaint and the pretrial order in this case were concerned exclusively with B & B's alleged breaches of the October 29, 1985 agreement. The collateral estoppel remedy argument was properly before this court because it was raised in the district court in connection with the union's opposition to B & B's motion for summary judgment, see note 3, supra, and because, if the argument were meritorious, it would establish B & B's liability under the October 29, 1985 agreement. Neither is true here; B & B was never on notice of an independent claim for damages for allegedly breaching the pre-hire agreement prior to its repudiation. As a general rule, an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal unless failure to do so would result in a miscarriage of justice. Sanders, 740 F.2d at 888. The union has not attempted to identify any miscarriage of justice in this case and the general rule therefore applies.