Opinion ID: 427024
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Purpose of the DelCostello Ruling.

Text: 17 We next examine whether retrospective operation of the Supreme Court's ruling in DelCostello will further or retard its operation. Chevron, 404 U.S. at 106-07, 92 S.Ct. at 355. The Supreme Court expressed three purposes underlying the DelCostello rule. First, the Court recognized the need for uniformity as one reason for rejecting the borrowing of diverse state statutes of limitations. DelCostello, 103 S.Ct. at 2294 (quoting Mitchell, 451 U.S. at 70, 101 S.Ct. at 1568 (Stewart, J., concurring in the judgment)); see id. at 2289. Second, the Court emphasized that state statutes of limitations for the vacation of arbitration awards, which Mitchell had held applicable, typically provide very short limitations periods, and thus failed to provide an aggrieved employee with a satisfactory opportunity to vindicate his rights. Id. at 2291. Third, the Court reaffirmed that federal labor law favored the relatively rapid final resolution of labor disputes, and rejected the adoption of long limitations periods which would allow grievance and arbitration decisions to be called into question long after the fact. Id. at 2292-93; see Mitchell, 451 U.S. at 63-64, 101 S.Ct. at 1564-1565. The Court concluded that the six-month limitations period of section 10(b) was best attuned to the proper balance between the national interest in stable bargaining relationships and finality of private settlement, and an employee's interest in setting aside what he views as an unjust settlement under the collective-bargaining system. DelCostello, 103 S.Ct. at 2294 (quoting Mitchell, 451 U.S. at 70-71, 101 S.Ct. at 1568 (Stewart, J., concurring in the judgment)). 18 In weighing these competing interests, the Third Circuit said: 19 We believe that [this balance] is best struck if DelCostello is applied retroactively. Given the uncertainty that has characterized the borrowing of state statutes of limitations for Vaca-Hines actions, simple application of section 10(b)'s statute of limitations will serve to increase the uniformity of treatment among similar claims. More important, the imposition of the six-month limitations period will promote the finality of grievance-arbitration decisions and prevent the belated raising of claims after years have passed. Finally, the retrospective application of section 10(b) will not undermine the goal of providing adequate opportunity for the employee to vindicate his rights, for the Court has determined, in effect, that six months is long enough. We thus find that the second Chevron factor counsels in favor of retroactivity. 20 Perez v. Dana Corp., Parish Frame Division, 718 F.2d 581, 588 (3d Cir.1983). 21 We believe this reasoning to be sound, and likewise conclude that this second criterion of Chevron favors DelCostello's retroactive application. 22