[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
DEC 13, 2006
No. 06-11338 THOMAS K. KAHN
________________________ CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-00230-CV-P-B
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO., CONSOLIDATED,
Plaintiff-Counter
Defendant-Appellant,
versus
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMAN & HELPERS LOCAL 991,
Defendant-Counter
Claimant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
_________________________
(December 13, 2006)
Before BIRCH and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and PRESNELL,* District Judge.
*
Honorable Gregory A. Presnell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
PER CURIAM:
This case arose out of a dispute governed by a collective bargaining
agreement between the Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consolidated Inc., (“CCBC”) and
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, and
Helpers, Local Union No. 991 (the “Union”), which was to be settled through
arbitration. The Arbitrator found that CCBC had breached its agreement with the
Union, and ordered “that the Union shall be made whole for any loss of
compensation.” However, the Arbitrator did not determine the amount of
damages, holding instead that the record did not contain enough information to
determine the amount of damages, if any, suffered by the Union. The arbitrator
offered to retain jurisdiction to consider the damages issue if requested to do so by
the parties.1
CCBC then filed suit in Federal district court, asking that the Court vacate
the Decision and Award issued by the Arbitrator. The Union filed a counterclaim,
requesting that the district court affirm and enforce the Arbitrator’s Decision and
Award. Both parties then filed Motions for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to an
opinion that focused primarily on the merits of the Arbitrator’s Decision (rather
than the Award), the district court granted the Union’s Motion. The district court’s
1
In this Court’s view, that decision constituted a de facto bifurcation of the damages
issue, to be resolved at a later time.
2
opinion stated that the Arbitrator’s Decision and Award were rational and
enforceable. CCBC then brought this appeal.
On appeal, it is difficult to discern what, exactly, the parties are arguing
about and what they want the courts to do about it. CCBC no longer challenges the
merits of the Arbitrator’s Decision that there was a breach of contract.
Additionally, both parties agree that the Arbitrator’s Award is incomplete. The
make whole remedy ordered by the Arbitrator is open to multiple interpretations
and provides little direction as to how the parties are to determine the actual
amount of damages to be paid. See San Antonio Newspaper Guild v. San Antonio
Light Div., 482 F.2d 821, 824 (5th Cir, 1973).2 As such, this Court finds that the
Award is unenforceable because it is ambiguous. See id.
The crux of the dispute thus boils down to how the amount of damages
should now be determined. The Union argues that the matter should be sent back
to the original arbitrator for further fact-finding and a determination of damages.
CCBC insists that, because the award is not “self-executing,” the Court should
order the parties to initiate a new grievance procedure with a new arbitrator.
Since the district court did not address this issue below, the case will be
2
All decisions of the Fifth Circuit issued prior to October 1, 1981, are binding precedent
on courts within the Eleventh Circuit. Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.
1981).
3
remanded to the district court to determine the appropriate procedure for resolving
the damages issue.
REVERSED and REMANDED .
4