Boeing Co. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers

United States District Court for the District of Kansas · Labor Law

Labor LawSection 301 LMRAArbitrationStatute of LimitationsLMRA § 301NLRA § 10(b)six-month limitations periodmotion to compel arbitration

Facts

David Russell was laid off by Boeing in January 2006, and the Union contended that a grievance was filed at that time challenging the layoff under the collective bargaining agreement. After discussions and Russell's return to work in August 2008, the parties continued negotiating over back pay, but those negotiations collapsed shortly after Boeing again laid him off in January 2009. In March 2009, the Union filed a grievance concerning Boeing's alleged repudiation of Russell's back pay claim, and on April 27, 2009, Boeing notified the Union that it was refusing to arbitrate any grievance related to the 2006 layoff. The Union then sued on April 22, 2010, seeking only an order compelling arbitration, not damages.

Issue

What statute of limitations applies to a Section 301 suit seeking to compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement: the six-month limitations period from Section 10(b) of the NLRA or the Kansas five-year limitations period for breach of contract? If the six-month period applies, is the Union's suit time-barred?

Rule

When Section 301 provides no statute of limitations, courts generally borrow the most analogous state limitations period, but they may instead borrow a federal limitations period when federal labor policy makes that period more appropriate. For a Section 301 action to compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement, the appropriate limitations period is the six-month period in Section 10(b) of the NLRA because such actions directly implicate the federal policy favoring prompt private resolution of labor disputes. A cause of action to compel arbitration accrues when a party clearly refuses to arbitrate.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A union representing mechanics at Red Mesa Transit Works in Albuquerque, New Mexico, filed a Section 301 action to compel arbitration under an existing collective bargaining agreement after the company rejected arbitration of a scheduling grievance. The rejection was sent in a letter on January 5, and the union sued on September 1 of the same year, arguing New Mexico's contract limitations period should control because the grievance concerns lost wages.

Which limitations period is most likely to apply, and what is the likely result?

Explanation. A Section 301 action whose only objective is to compel arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement is governed by the six-month period borrowed from NLRA Section 10(b), not the longer state contract period. The majority reasoned that such suits directly implicate the federal policy favoring prompt private resolution of labor disputes and are not analogous to straightforward damages actions. Because the employer clearly refused arbitration on January 5 and the union sued more than six months later, the claim is time-barred. (Derived from Boeing Co. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (n.d.).)