Opinion ID: 6155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Barrow's Breach of Contract Claims

Text: 21 Barrow's original complaint charged the Union and NOSSA with breaching the collective bargaining agreement. 31 On Barrow's prior appeal to this Court, we upheld the district judge's ruling that Barrow's breach of contract claim was barred by limitations. 32 We remanded on the question whether the defendants had also violated the CBA in failing to fill all gang vacancies. After our remand, the district court held that (1) those allegations were likewise barred by limitations, and (2) the breach of contract allegations in Barrow's amended complaint did not relate back under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). We review the district court's first holding de novo, 33 and its second for abuse of discretion. 34 22 Barrow maintains that NOSSA and Cooper breached the CBA and the Union breached its duty of fair representation by not timely filling all gang vacancies. Those claims are subject to the six-month statute of limitations found in Sec. 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). 35 The claims accrued, and the limitations clock began to run, when Barrow discovered or should have discovered that persistent gang vacancies existed. 36 Barrow undercuts his own position here by admitting that vacancies at his position of winch runner existed for months and years in violation of the contract. 37 Barrow's allegations of persistent gang vacancies are based on the same facts as those underlying the allegations that we held time barred in Barrow I. We agree with the district court that Barrow had knowledge of CBA violations more than six months before he brought suit. Accordingly, the district court correctly held that those allegations are time barred. 23 We need not address the question whether the district court abused its discretion in holding that the allegations of Barrow's amended complaint did not relate back as per Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c). Even if those allegations did relate back to the date Barrow filed this suit, they would still be time barred, because they involve conduct of which Barrow had knowledge more than six months before this suit was filed. We find no error in the district judge's ruling that Barrow's breach of contract claims were not brought within the limitations period. 24