“No Court Before Completion” – The Fourth Circuit’s Robust Re-statement of the Complete Arbitration Rule in Wheeling Power Co.-Mitchell Plant v. Local 492, UWUA (AFL-CIO)

“No Court Before Completion”: The Fourth Circuit’s Robust Re-statement of the Complete Arbitration Rule

Introduction

In Wheeling Power Company – Mitchell Plant v. Local 492, Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether a federal court may review a labor-arbitration award when the arbitrator has decided liability but expressly retained jurisdiction to fashion a remedy. The dispute arose after Wheeling Power temporarily imported non-bargaining-unit employees to its Mitchell Power Plant, prompting a grievance and a liability ruling in favor of Local 492. Rather than negotiate a remedy, the employer filed suit to vacate the award. The district court confirmed the award; Wheeling Power appealed. On July 25 2025, the Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and directed dismissal without prejudice, holding that the lawsuit was premature under the “complete arbitration rule.”

The decision clarifies (1) when an arbitration award is “final and binding” for purposes of judicial review, (2) the mandatory nature of the complete arbitration rule once invoked, and (3) the appellate court’s discretion to notice the rule sua sponte despite a party’s forfeiture.

Summary of the Judgment

  • Holding: An arbitrator’s award that resolves liability but retains jurisdiction over remedies is not “final and binding.” A lawsuit seeking judicial review before remedies are decided is therefore premature and must be dismissed.
  • Outcome: District court’s confirmation order vacated; case remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice.
  • Key procedural point: Although Local 492 failed to raise the complete arbitration rule in the district court, the Fourth Circuit excused the forfeiture, invoking its discretion to prevent inefficient, piecemeal litigation.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

  • Peabody Holding Co. v. United Mine Workers, 815 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 2016)
    – Principal Fourth Circuit authority articulating the complete arbitration rule. The panel treats Wheeling Power as a “straightforward application” of Peabody.
  • General Drivers Local 90 v. Riss & Co., 372 U.S. 517 (1963)
    – Supreme Court recognition that courts may review only “final and binding” arbitration awards, forming the doctrinal bedrock.
  • Millmen Local 550 v. Wells Exterior Trim, 828 F.2d 1373 (9th Cir. 1987) & Michaels v. Mariforum Shipping, 624 F.2d 411 (2d Cir. 1980)
    – Sister-circuit cases emphasizing that unresolved damages/remedy issues render an award non-final. The Fourth Circuit adopts their reasoning.
  • functus officio doctrine cases (e.g., AO Techsnabexport v. Globe Nuclear Services)
    – Used to analogize the “intent of the arbitrator” test for finality: if the arbitrator believes work remains, the award is non-final.

Legal Reasoning

  1. Finality prerequisite
    Under §10 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), federal courts may confirm or vacate only “final and binding” awards. The panel reiterates that determining finality is a jurisdiction-adjacent, prudential step.
  2. Definition of “Complete Arbitration”
    The court deems an award incomplete where the arbitrator “first decides liability questions and reserves jurisdiction to decide remedial questions at a later time.” Remedy—including damages or prospective relief—is an essential facet of the dispute.
  3. Arbitrator’s expressed intent
    Because the arbitrator expressly “retain[ed] jurisdiction” if the parties reached impasse on remedy, he did not consider his assignment finished; thus, the award lacked finality.
  4. Employer’s contrary argument rejected
    Wheeling Power argued that Article 3(b) of the CBA restricted the arbitrator to determining whether any union employee was laid off; since none were, the award was allegedly complete. The court held that finality turns on the arbitrator’s own view of completeness, not a party’s construction of contractual scope.
  5. Forfeiture and appellate discretion
    Although Local 492 never invoked the complete-arbitration rule below, appellate courts may forgive forfeiture to promote efficiency, avoid piecemeal litigation, and enforce important institutional policies.

Impact on Future Cases and Labor-Arbitration Law

  • Clear Warning to Premature Litigants: Parties that rush to court before an arbitrator determines a remedy risk dismissal, wasted costs, and delay. Counsel must now scrutinize arbitration clauses and awards for retained jurisdiction language.
  • Strengthened Deference to Arbitral Process: The decision promotes arbitration’s purpose—speedy, final, and self-contained dispute resolution—by keeping courts from acting as supervisory bodies mid-stream.
  • Practical Leverage in Settlement Talks: Knowing courts will not intervene mid-course incentivizes parties to negotiate remedies earnestly rather than litigate strategically.
  • Forfeiture Doctrine Clarified: While the complete arbitration rule is prudential, the Fourth Circuit signals its willingness to raise it sua sponte where record and briefing are adequate. Future litigants cannot assume silence below preserves an avenue for premature judicial review.
  • Potential for Broader Application: Although a labor-arbitration case, the reasoning may spill into commercial arbitration where statutory schemes similarly require “final” awards for confirmation or vacatur.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Complete Arbitration Rule: A judicial doctrine requiring that an arbitrator finish all parts of a dispute—liability and remedy—before courts will review the award.
  • Final & Binding Award: An arbitration decision that the arbitrator intends as a complete resolution, leaving nothing of substance for later determination.
  • Functus Officio: Latin for “having performed one’s office.” Once an arbitrator issues a final award, he loses authority to act further. Conversely, if he keeps jurisdiction, he is not functus officio and the award is non-final.
  • Prudential vs. Jurisdictional Rules: Jurisdictional rules cannot be waived; prudential rules can, but courts may still enforce them to serve institutional interests.
  • Waiver vs. Forfeiture: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right; forfeiture is the failure to assert a right in time. The court forgave forfeiture here.
  • Dismissal Without Prejudice: The case is closed, but parties may re-file once the condition (a final arbitral award) is met.

Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit’s published opinion in Wheeling Power Co.-Mitchell Plant delivers a forceful message: federal courts will not entertain challenges to labor-arbitration awards until the arbitrator has spoken fully, including on remedies. By vacating the district court’s confirmation order and dismissing the matter without prejudice, the panel fortifies the complete arbitration rule, safeguards arbitral autonomy, and discourages tactical courthouse forays aimed at delay. The decision also exemplifies the court’s willingness to overlook forfeiture where strong institutional interests—finality, efficiency, and respect for the arbitral forum—are at stake. Practitioners navigating collective-bargaining arbitrations (and, by analogy, FAA-governed commercial arbitrations) must carefully assess whether an award is genuinely “final and binding” before invoking judicial review.

Case Details

Comments