Opinion ID: 787046
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: July 8, 2003 Decision

Text: 23 On October 11, 2002, ACS filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). In its motion, ACS argued that the NLRB's ruling of September 26, 2002, undermined the decision of the JAB and therefore required the district court to reconsider its decision affirming the JAB's award. The district court agreed, and, on July 8, 2003, it entered judgment in favor of ACS. 24 In its July 8, 2003 decision, the court began with the settled proposition in this circuit that an NLRB decision issued pursuant to a § 10(k) proceeding overrides a conflicting decision by an arbitrator. R.31 at 6. The court then explained that the JAB's award and the NLRB's § 10(k) determination conflicted. See id. at 9 ([T]he JAB found that ACS was bound to the Principal Agreement; the NLRB found that it was not, and specifically noted that the JAB had no jurisdiction over ACS. Although the JAB did not directly address the Deerfield Project, the NLRB's order makes clear that ACS was not bound by the Principal Agreement to use Iron Workers at that site, either.). Because the court found the JAB's award in conflict with the NLRB's § 10(k) determination, and because the law compels that, in this situation, the NLRB's determination takes precedence, the district court reversed its prior decision and held that the JAB was without jurisdiction and its award must be vacated. II