The district judge agreed and dismissed the case. 812 F. Supp. 754. The union now appeals. In Communications Workers of America v. Beck, 487 U.S. 735, 108 S.Ct. 2641, 101 L.Ed.2d 634 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held that § 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act authorizes a union to exact from non-union employees represented in a bargaining unit "those fees and dues necessary to `performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues.'"
Application of the limitations period in the Federal Arbitration Act — 1 year — is inappropriate in this case because 1) "the Act contains language exempting contracts of employment of workers engaged in interstate commerce," Cyprus, 681 F. Supp. at 277 (citing 9 U.S.C. § 1); 2) the dispute in this case, regardless of whether the Committee's decision was final and binding, did not reach arbitration; and 3) the parties never "agreed that a judgment of the court shall be entered upon the award made pursuant to the arbitration." 9 U.S.C. § 9; see R. 1, Ex. C; United Food Commercial Workers Local 951 v. Mulder, 1992 U.S. Dist LEXIS 18619, at * 30, WL 475746, at *10 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 1, 1992) (citing Oklahoma City Ass'n v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 923 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1991)). However, the 6-month limitations period in § 10(b) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, actions under which bear a "family resemblance" to actions under § 301, see Cyprus, 681 F. Supp. at 277 (citing DelCostello, 462 U.S. at 170), is properly borrowed and applied to this § 301 suit.
867 F.2d at 508 (citations omitted). Even closer to the issue presented in this case are Baltimore Mailers Union No. 888 v. Moore, 881 F. Supp. 217 (D.Md. 1995), and United Food Commercial Workers Local 951 v. Mulder, 812 F. Supp. 754 (W.D.Mich. 1993), aff'd, 31 F.3d 365 (6th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1095, 130 L.Ed.2d 1064 (1995), both of which are post- Wooddell cases dealing with a local union's attempt to collect money from individual union members under the union constitution or collective bargaining agreement. In Baltimore Mailers, the local sued in state small claims court to collect back dues from six of its members.
The same result has been reached post- Wooddell. Shea v. McCarthy, 953 F.2d 29, 32 (2d Cir. 1992) (holding that only equitable claims may be asserted against individual members in suit by union for breach of union constitution). See, to the same effect, United Food Commercial Wkrs. Local 951 v. Mulder, 812 F. Supp. 754, 757 (W.D.Mich. 1993). In that Wooddell did not open up a twoway street for contract damages claims against union members, such as for a member's failure to pay dues, this Court lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction, and these cases will be remanded, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), with costs awarded to plaintiff.