[NOT FOR PUBLICATION -- NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 02-1195
RTA TRANSIT SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff, Appellee,
v.
AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, LOCAL 22,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Howard, Circuit Judge.
Gary H. Goldberg for appellant.
Michael D. Badger with whom D. M. Moschos and Mirick,
O'Connell, DeMallie & Lougee were on brief for appellee.
September 27, 2002
Per curiam. Following a refusal of appellant Amalgamated
Transit Union, Local 22 ("Local 22") in February 2001 to work
overtime, appellee RTA Transit Services, Inc., ("RTA") sought
injunctive and declaratory relief. The parties subsequently
entered into a stipulation, accepted by the district court,
agreeing not to engage in future work stoppages and to submit all
complaints of alleged violations of the collective bargaining
agreement to grievance and arbitration procedures consistent with
the arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement. In
November 2001, RTA sought to hold Local 22 in contempt for another
refusal to work overtime. The court found an illegal work
stoppage, but did not impose a sanction and warned that it would
impose a substantial fine "if this happens again."
In January 2002, RTA, carrying out an ordered realignment and
reduction of bus routes, alleged violations of both the prior
stipulation and the collective bargaining agreement through a
refusal of Local 22 to complete a required re-rating, and filed an
emergency motion for contempt. Local 22 filed an emergency motion
to compel arbitration on the issue of whether it was required to
conduct the re-rating under the circumstances, claiming that it did
not have the requisite documentation from RTA. Hearing was held on
both motions and affidavits submitted.
Following the hearing, the district court issued an order on
January 24, 2002, which in relevant part required (1) Local 22 to
complete the re-rating process by January 31, 2002, in default of
which action monetary sanctions would be imposed, and (2) both
-2-
parties to submit alleged grievances relating to the collective
bargaining agreement to expedited arbitration.
Local 22 completed the re-rating as ordered and no sanctions
were imposed. On January 30, the district court denied Local 22's
motion to compel arbitration or, in the alternative, to clarify its
re-rating order, wherein Local 22 specifically asked "whether or
not the Court is precluding an arbitrator from deciding whether the
Union is required to perform a re-rating if other related
provisions of the contract are being violated." Local 22
subsequently appealed both orders.
Meanwhile, arbitration proceedings were initiated and a
hearing held on other grievance matters. The arbitrator has
refused Local 22's request to rule on the issue of whether the
January 22 re-rating should have been required under the
circumstances, on the basis that he has no authority to overrule a
district court order. Local 22 subsequently renewed its motion to
compel in the district court, asking the court once again to send
the January re-rating issue to the arbitrator. On September 4, the
district court issued its response, declining to rule pending this
court's decision.
In view of the above, we conclude that although the court in
its order of January 24, 2002, found Local 22 in contempt, that
contempt was purged by Local 22's completion of the re-rating as
ordered. Thus, the issue of the validity of the contempt portions
of the court's orders is moot. Having no appellate jurisdiction,
we refrain from any judgment.
-3-
Nevertheless, Local 22 also seeks a ruling from this court on
the validity of the district court's decision to assume
jurisdiction over the underlying issue, namely, whether Local 22
was required to do the January re-rating pursuant to the collective
bargaining agreement. The unusual procedural posture of this case,
however, complicates this court's ability to respond. Whether or
not the January 30 order of the district court, refusing to clarify
its January 24 order or compel arbitration, would have been
appealable to this court, the subsequent actions of the parties,
seeking further rulings from both the arbitrator and the district
court, complicate the problem.
Although the arbitrator is currently seized of a number of
issues that will be subject to judicial review upon conclusion, he
has already ruled that he will not revisit this issue. The district
court, however, has not reached a final decision on Local 22's
subsequent renewed request that the issue be sent to arbitration.
In this posture of the case, it seems to us in the interests
of expedition and judicial economy to give the district court
freedom to address Local 22's request and bring this phase of
litigation to completion. We therefore retain jurisdiction pending
the district court's final order on Local 22's renewed motion
requesting that the district court send this issue to arbitration.
The parties, and the district court, are directed to notify the
clerk of this court when the district court rules. If no request
for further appellate review is received within thirty days of that
-4-
ruling, the remainder of this appeal will be dismissed without
prejudice and without the assessment of costs.
Appeal dismissed in part. Jurisdiction retained pending final
disposition by the district court.
-5-