Teamsters Local Union No 107 v. Madison Concrete Construction

── Teamsters Local Union No 107 v. Madison Concrete Construction ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Date: May 27, 2026 Category: General NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ______________ No. 24-1172 ______________ TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 107 v. MADISON CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, Appellant v. ANTHONY SGRILLO ______________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (No. 2:22-cv-03721) District Judge: Honorable John R. Padova ______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) May 11, 2026 ______________ Before: SHWARTZ, MASCOTT, and McKEE, Circuit Judges. (Filed: May 27, 2026) ______________ OPINION* ____________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and, pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7, does not constitute binding precedent. SHWARTZ, Circuit Judge. Madison Concrete Construction appeals the District Court’s order denying its motion to vacate an arbitration award. Because the order is not a final decision, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction, so we will dismiss the appeal. I A Anthony Sgrillo worked for Madison and was provided with a company truck and a credit card for gas. Madison contends that Sgrillo was authorized to use the credit card only when using the company vehicle, but Sgrillo claimed he could use the card to fuel his personal vehicle for commuting. When Madison learned that Sgrillo charged more than $15,000 to the card, it fired him. Sgrillo filed a grievance for unjust discharge pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Teamsters Local Union No. 107 and Madison. At the hearing before the Grievance Committee, the Union raised a “point of order” that Madison had not provided Sgrillo written notice of his discharge as required by the CBA. App. 122. The Committee asked James Dolente, Madison’s president, to present Madison’s position, and he responded that he was unaware of the process and stated that Madison would not reinstate Sgrillo. The Committee then privately considered the point of order. Thereafter, the Committee advised Dolente that the hearing “may not go well for Madison” and suggested attempting settlement. App. 116. Dolente then left the hearing. The hearing resumed without Dolente, and the Committee upheld the Union’s 2 point of order and awarded Sgrillo reinstatement with back pay and benefits (the “Award”). Later that day, Dolente sent the Union a letter stating that Sgrillo had been terminated for just cause and asking that it forward the letter to Sgrillo. B The Union filed a complaint in the District Court seeking to enforce the Award under the Labor-Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), see 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Madison moved to vacate the Award under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), see 9 U.S.C. § 10, and thereafter filed an answer asserting affirmative defenses and a third- party complaint against Sgrillo. The District Court denied Madison’s motion to vacate, and the Union thereafter moved for summary judgment. Four days later, Madison appeal