applying state statute of limitations for confirmation of an arbitration award to Sec tion 301 action to enforce an arbitration award
How later courts described this case
- applying state statute of limitations for confirmation of an arbitration award to Sec tion 301 action to enforce an arbitration award
- “Because there had been no timely motion to vacate, modify or correct the award, the district court could not have remanded for the purpose of modifying or correcting the award. But it did have the authority to remand for clarification.”
- applying Ohio’s one-year limit for confirmation of awards
- district courts have authority to remand to arbitrator for clarification of ambiguous award
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in all but Part V-A of the court’s opinion, and I respectfully dissent as to that part.
In the present context, the term “interim earnings” strikes me as ambiguous. I simply do not know whether it was intended to signify all outside earnings or merely the marginal earnings which, as the transcript itself suggested, were attributable to the increased time Mr. Friday was able to devote to his outside business during the interim period.
Mr. Friday will not be made whole for the full loss suffered during the interim period if his normal outside earnings are deducted in addition to the marginal earnings made possible by his absence from the factory. Perhaps the arbitrator really intended that Friday be penalized by deduction of the outside earnings he would have received after the 30th day anyway, but if so, the arbitrator’s choice of the words “made whole” seems infelicitous. I would ask the arbitrator to clarify both the interim earnings question and the overtime question.