APM Terminals Mobile, LLC, a stevedoring company, entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Local 1410, a union representing longshoremen at the Port of Mobile, Alabama. The agreement contained a no-strike provision and a mandatory multi-step grievance process culminating in arbitration. When APM alleged a strike and sued the union for breach of the no-strike provision, the union moved to compel arbitration. The district court denied the motion, concluding that the agreement permitted APM to seek monetary damages in court. The union then filed an interlocutory appeal of that denial, while APM's damages action remained pending in the district court.
Chief Judge Pryor, writing for the court, addressed three potential bases for jurisdiction and rejected each. First, the court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorize interlocutory appeals for this case. Although the Act allows appeals from orders denying arbitration, Section 1 excludes 'contracts of employment' for workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce. The court found that longshoremen loading and discharging cargo are 'engaged in foreign or interstate commerce' under the Supreme Court's ruling in Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, placing their collective bargaining agreements within the exclusion. Second, the court rejected the argument that the Labor Management Relations Act provides jurisdiction. Section 301 of that Act authorizes federal courts to enforce collective bargaining agreements but does not alter the longstanding requirement of finality for appellate jurisdiction. Third, the court applied the collateral-order doctrine, which requires an order to conclusively determine a disputed question, resolve an issue separate from the merits, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The court explained that an erroneous denial of arbitration is not effectively unreviewable because the appellate court can reverse the denial and remand for arbitration after the case concludes. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court has consistently limited the collateral-order doctrine and noted that other remedies, such as temporary restraining orders, exist to preserve the status quo during litigation.
The union's attempt to force immediate arbitration is paused, and the case proceeds in the district court for a full trial on the merits. The decision reinforces that parties must wait for a final judgment to challenge arbitration denials in collective bargaining disputes, unless the specific arbitration agreement falls outside the employment exclusion of the Federal Arbitration Act. The ruling leaves open the question of whether the underlying arbitration claim has merit, which will be determined on appeal after the district court concludes its proceedings.