SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Local 399, AFL-CIO v. James L. Mclemore, d/b/a Maximum Air Flow

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1981
SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Local 399,
AFL-CIO,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES L. MCLEMORE, d/b/a Maximum Air Flow,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge. (2:07-cv-02912-CWH)
Submitted: September 9, 2013 Decided: October 9, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Christopher W. Johnson, GIGNILLIAT, SAVITZ & BETTIS, L.L.P.,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Michael T. Anderson,
Arlus J. Stephens, MURPHY ANDERSON PLLC, Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 5 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Maximum Air Flow Co. appeals the district court’s order
enforcing an interest-arbitration award and a grievance-
arbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Workers’ Association
International, Local 399, AFL-CIO (“Sheet Metal Workers’”). We
affirm.
Sheet Metal Workers’ is an agent and local union that
represents sheet metal workers in the collective bargaining
process. Maximum Air Flow is a private company located in South
Carolina that handles sheet metal ducting for heating and
ventilation systems. Sheet Metal Workers’ and Maximum Air Flow
were parties to several pre-hire agreements prior to the one at
issue here. This case arises out of the third pre-hire agreement
(“Agreement”). The Agreement contained a mandatory dispute
resolution process for grievances of either party, requiring the
parties to participate in the National Joint Adjustment Board’s
(“NJAB”) arbitration procedure. The Agreement also contained an
interest-arbitration clause, which established that if
negotiations for a renewal of the Agreement came to a deadlock,
the parties were to submit the issue to the NJAB for a binding
decision on the matter.
In May 2006, Sheet Metal Workers’ notified Maximum Air Flow
that it wanted to renew the Agreement. After the parties were
unable to reach a new agreement, Sheet Metal Workers’ submitted

-- 2 of 5 --

3
the unresolved negotiations to the NJAB. The NJAB ultimately
ordered the parties to execute an agreement, the interest-
arbitration award, which was to be negotiated by the area
contractor group and Sheet Metal Workers’.
Maximum Air Flow refused to comply with the interest-
arbitration agreement, prompting Sheet Metal Workers’ to file a
grievance with the NJAB. The NJAB thereafter issued a grievance-
arbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Workers’, awarding
$341,915.00 in damages and an additional $47,589.00 to be paid
to the Local 399 Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee.
Sheet Metal Workers’ brought the underlying action pursuant
to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29
U.S.C. § 185, seeking judicial confirmation and enforcement of
the two arbitration awards, plus costs and attorney’s fees.
Maximum Air Flow responded by moving to vacate both awards.
Sheet Metal Workers’ contended that the statute of limitations
precluded Maximum Air Flow from vacating the awards.
The district court, after a hearing, agreed with Sheet
Metal Workers’ that the statute of limitations barred Maximum
Air Flow’s challenge. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local
399, AFL-CIO v. Maximum Air Flow Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 392
(D.S.C. 2012). Specifically, the district court held the dispute
was a labor management dispute and thus the LMRA provided
jurisdiction; however, the LMRA does not provide a statute of

-- 3 of 5 --

4
limitations period for moving to vacate an arbitration award.
See, e.g., Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, AFL-CIO v. Cataneo Inc.,
990 F.2d 794, 799 (4th Cir. 1993). “To fill this void, courts
must look to the most analogous state statute.” Id. The district
court found South Carolina’s ninety-day statute of limitations,
S.C. Code Ann. § 15-48-130(b), which applies to motions to
vacate an arbitration award, to be the most analogous state
statute. See Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 877 F. Supp. 2d
at 398. The district court relied on similar cases from this
court that borrowed the statute of limitations from state
arbitration statutes when the dispute involved vacating an
arbitration award. See id. at 397–98 & n.5. The district court
found Maximum Air Flow had not challenged either arbitration
award within the appropriate ninety-day period, and thus the
statute of limitations barred vacating these awards. See id. at
398.
Maximum Air Flow now appeals, arguing the district court
erred in applying South Carolina’s ninety-day statute of
limitations because the statute excludes direct application to
collective bargaining disputes. The issue of the applicable
statute of limitations is a legal matter, which we review de
novo. See McCullough v. Branch Banking & Trust Co., 35 F.3d 127,
129 (4th Cir. 1994).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the district
court’s opinion, and the applicable law, we affirm substantially
on the reasoning of the district court’s order. Sheet Metal
Workers' Int'l Ass'n, 877 F. Supp. 2d 392. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before us and oral argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 5 of 5 --