WPC9y 6tE=+AF⬊ý/r)d ZNҭc[[b|~V>WD B*I:EJzGh|aKX eP.r1u{LkBY[gL=9[F5|B$ ˸G-?W=KZ;ϛXN+l)H4j@I?P/StV*U5#B$*n54||`IXHbZ LDG+an!v;!fAT0Wd}1=ⱏ @j0N>~fXnhLu4_5^~염ƨd\ꛖ{?BcC8C9` UU6'/HBBYTw/RAC ?(Ch*_yqr1 |Se!܆':=# %M 0DS 0( 0/nTjN<^ w4  / m1EHfJaLN`>bbCCCCKUFUFc3U:MUFUF !UF# B#UF#4$UF&J&UF(L(**,U:-(./UF1UF1@2U:Z4UF4UF4B 5U:b77UFX99UFZ;UF;UF;,<UF=UF.>t>"Q@U:sBUFBBUFDDUFF;FU:2IUFlI;IKUFMMUFOBOU:3RUFmRRUFoTTUFyVVUF{XU:XUFXUFAYAYAYAYYUFC[[UFE]]B_U:aUF"bU:hbUFbbeUFfgUFhU:i;AiU:|kUFkkBmU:pUFUpUFpUFppppppUF'q;mqU:sUFssssss(tU:CvUF}v}vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvUFxxU@xHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 5e,,,,0X(#$  0  ($ (d:2$ !  =XXdd=      0    $=#XXdd=      1    _= # XXdXXd=The_MNA_ԀalsosoughttoadjudgetheHospitalinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.<6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@ 2 $=#XXdd=      4    _=#XXdXXd=Itappearsthatatleastoneofthenewcomplaintsmaynot  implicateArticle18.07atall.Forourpurposes,nothingturnson  thisfact;accordinglyweassume,favorablytothe_MNA_,thatall \ thenewcomplaintsimplicateArticle18.07.0Z5 556X!50backup3|xUTABLE Aq:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPT  $=#XXdd=      3    _=#XXdXXd=Whiletheremainingreportswerenotsoannexed,theparties  havemadepersistentreferencestothemduringthecourseofthis  appeal.- -  $=/XXdd=      1    _=! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthatthe  Hospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.  $=/XXdd=      1    _=! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular  $=#/XXdd=      1    _=! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthatthe  Hospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.  $!!!!!  ="/XXdd=      1    _= ! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthatthe  Hospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular  $=(/XXdd=      1    _=$ Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.  $=&/XXdd=      1    _=%! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular d.Courier New Regular  $=*/XXdd=      1    _=)! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthatthe  Hospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved..Courier New Regular  $=,/XXdd=      1    _=+ Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular  $=@XXdd=      1    _=- XdXXd=TheMNAalsosoughtanorderthattheHospitalwasin  violationofanotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehas  beenresolved.  $03R03R3R  =8/XXdd=      1    _=.3R d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthatthe  Hospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.  $=CXXdd=      1    _=/ XdXXd=TheMNAalsosoughtanorderthattheHospitalwasin  violationofanotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehas  beenresolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular  $=4/XXdd=      1    _=1! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthatthe  Hospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.  $=3/XXdd=      1    _=2! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular  $6!6!!  =7/XXdd=      1    _=5! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthatthe  Hospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular 8 $:3R:3R3R  =?/XXdd=      1    _=93R d/XXd=The_MNA_Ԁalsosoughtanorderthat  theHospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular  $=</XXdd=      1    _=; Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular  $=>/XXdd=      1    _==! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular  $=B/XXdd=      1    _=A Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular  I$=_XXdd=      1    _=D XdXXd=The_MNA_ԀalsosoughttoadjudgetheHospitalinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.  $F:F::  =GXXdd=      1    _=E: dXXd=TheMNAalsosoughtanorderthat  theHospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular  $=I/XXdd=      1    _=H! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular  $=K/XXdd=      1    _=J Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular 1 $M:M::  =NXXdd=      1    _=L: dXXd=The_MNA_Ԁalsosoughttoadjudgethe  Hospitalinviolationofanotherportionof  the_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular 1 $]:]::  =^XXdd=      1    _=O: dXXd=The_MNA_Ԁalsosoughttoadjudgethe  Hospitalinviolationofanotherportionof  the_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.  $=Q/XXdd=      1    _=P Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular  $=S/XXdd=      1    _=R! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular 8 $U3RU3R3R  =V/XXdd=      1    _=T3R d/XXd=The_MNA_Ԁalsosoughtanorderthat  theHospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular  $=X/XXdd=      1    _=W Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular  $=ZXXdd=      1    _=Y XdXXd=TheMNAalsosoughtanorderthattheHospitalwasin  violationofanotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehas  beenresolved..Courier New Regular  $=\/XXdd=      1    _=[! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular  $=d/XXdd=      1    _=c Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular  $=f/XXdd=      1    _=e! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular  P$k8Zk8Z8Z  =lXXdd=      1    _=g8Z dXXd=TheMNAalsosoughttoadjudgethe  Hospitalinviolationofanotherportionof  the_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved. 8 $i3Ri3R3R  =j/XXdd=      1    _=h3R d/XXd=The_MNA_Ԁalsosoughtanorderthat  theHospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular  P$r/r//  ={XXdd=      1    _=m/ dXXd=TheMNAalsosoughttoadjudgethe  Hospitalinviolationofanotherportionof  the_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.  $=o/XXdd=      1    _=n Xd/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular  $=q/XXdd=      1    _=p! d/XXd=TheMNAalsoallegedthattheHospitalwasinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved..Courier New Regular,yAZ"Arial Regular 1 $t:t::  =uXXdd=      1    _=s: dXXd=The_MNA_Ԁalsosoughttoadjudgethe  Hospitalinviolationofanotherportionof  the_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular  I$=zXXdd=      1    _=v XdXXd=The_MNA_ԀalsosoughttoadjudgetheHospitalinviolationof  anotherportionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved. 8 $x3Rx3R3R  =y/XXdd=      1    _=w3R d/XXd=The_MNA_Ԁalsosoughtanorderthat  theHospitalwasinviolationofanother  portionofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdispute  hasbeenresolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular.Courier New Regular 1 $:::  =XXdd=      1    _=: dXXd=The_MNA_Ԁalsosoughttoadjudgethe  Hospitalinviolationofanotherportionof  the_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular  P$8Z8Z8Z  =XXdd=      1    _=8Z dXXd=TheMNAalsosoughttoadjudgethe  Hospitalinviolationofanotherportionof  the_Stutz_ԀAward.Thatdisputehasbeen  resolved.,yAZ"Arial Regular.Courier New Regular  $=#XXdd=      2    _=#XXdXXd=Thepartiesspeak,interchangeably,ofboth"confirming"and  "enforcing"the_Stutz_ԀAward.Becauseenforcementseemsmoreaptin  thecontextofthiscase,weusethatterminology.<4 9Z+.Courier New Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman !  _TRXܐ3'X3' Letter3'Letter3'LetterT ? * !   ~ }XX~X}}~ UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#~ }}~X##X#X}~ #  X OXXX#U>XX OFortheFirstCircuit  r #X OXU>##X#XXX Op#A') ` dE< ` A  X No.052799   @0 0 MASSACHUSETTSNURSESASSOCIATION, o   @ Plaintiff,Appellant, k  @tt)v.   @ NORTHADAMSREGIONALHOSPITAL, s  @<< Defendant,Appellee. o A') ` dE<` A  @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS \ @[Hon.KennethP._Neiman_,U.S.MagistrateJudge] X A') ` dE<` A  @'Before    Boudin,ChiefJudge, E Selya,CircuitJudge,and k  _Schwarzer_,*SeniorDistrictJudge. A! A') ` dE<r"` A s"$         MarkA._Hickernell_,withwhomAlanJ.McDonaldandMcDonald, .$~' _Lamond_Ԁ&_Canzoneri_wereonbrief,forappellant. %T (   RobertB.Gordon,withwhomDavidC.PotterandRopes&Gray %*!) _LLP_wereonbrief,forappellee. &"*   *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  2)$-2)$  SI)$.  @39015 @SOctober26,2006 l*%0  RHCB+&1"  @39015  @ R()$2  (* !  __________ H,'2   *OftheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,sittingbydesignation.  -n(3?   *,X` XX*8#XXdd8=#XXdd= ` SELYA,CircuitJudge. Thisappealrequiresustomull  thecircumstancesinwhichaunion,havingsuccessfullyarbitrated x agrievance,mayleveragetheawardtobypassproceduresprescribed $t byacollectivebargainingagreementandobtaindirectfederal   courtreliefforsubsequentepisodesofallegedemployer |  misconduct.Inthecaseathand,thedistrictcourtthwartedthe ( x  union'sattempttoshortcircuitthegrievanceprocess,findingtoo $  greatadisparitybetweenthefactsunderlyingtheinitial   complaintsandthosegivingrisetothesubsequentcomplaints. ,|  Aftercarefulconsideration,weaffirm. ( @tt) I.  @XX%Background L  ` NorthAdamsRegionalHospital(theHospital)employs d nursesrepresentedbytheMassachusettsNursesAssociation(_MNA_).  Thisdisputearisesoutofacollectivebargainingagreement(_CBA_) l betweenthetwoorganizations.Article18.07ofthe_CBA_Ԁcontains h aprovisionentitled"StandardsofNursingPractice,"which   requirestheHospitalto"onlykeepandadmitthenumberof p!" patientsthat registerednursescansafelycarefor" and to"take #l$ measuressuchasaddingnurses[and] stoppingadmissions...to $4 & ensurethatthisoccurs."The_CBA_Ԁfurtherprovidesastereotypical &!( grievanceprocedure,culminatinginbindingarbitration,toresolve X(#*  covereddisputes. *T%, _ ` In2002,nursesemployedbytheHospitalfiled   approximatelyninereportsalleginginadequatestaffingona \ particularfloor(ThreeNorth) inviolationofArticle18.07.The X _MNA_ convertedthesecomplaintsintoformalgrievances.Arbitration   hearingstookplacein2003and2004.OnFebruary21,2005,the   arbitrator,Michael_Stutz_,foundthattheHospitalhadtransgressed D   the_CBA_Ԁandissuedaremedialorder.Weneednotrecountallthe @  particularsofthearbitrator'sentiredecisionandorder   (collectively,the_Stutz_ԀAward);fornow,itsufficestorepeatthe H  orderalone: D 8 ` a)TheHospitalshallceaseanddesist  violatingArticle18.07oftheAgreement;v` x` x 8 ` b)TheHospitalshallpaythe_MNA_Ԁanamountof "r moneyequaltothepayofoneRNforeachof H thenineshiftsgrieved;and` x` x 8 ` c)TheHospitalshallpaytheRN'sworkingthe z nineshiftstimeandonehalfforthosenine P shifts,i.e.thedifferencebetweentimeand &v onehalfpayandwhattheyactuallywerepaid.L` x` x # ` Inthespringof2005"somethreeyearsaftertheevents   thatgaverisetotheinitialgrievances"nursesattheHospital T!" reportedwhattheybelievedtobeadditional violationsofArticle #P$ 18.07.Whileatleastoneofthesereportsdealtwithaneventon $ & ThreeNorth,thevastmajorityoftheminvolvedeventsoccurringin t&!( otherareasoftheHospital.Ratherthanconvertingthese  (p#* complaintsintooneormoreformalgrievances,the_MNA_Ԁattempteda )%, shortcut;itfiledadirectactioninthefederaldistrictcourt, x+&. seekingenforcementoftheceaseanddesistportionofthe_Stutz_  Award. #  1      ׀Thatactionrestedonsection301oftheLaborManagement \ RelationsAct,29U.S.C.185,which authorizesfederaldistrict X courtstoenforcecollectivebargainingpactsand,thus,toenforce   laborarbitrationawardsissuedpursuanttosuchpacts._ #  2      _ԀSee |  TextileWorkersv.LincolnMills,353U.S.448,451(1957).This ( x  meansthatwhere,ashere,acollectivebargainingagreement $  containsanarbitrationclause,anarbitralawardisakintoa   contractualobligationthatcanbeenforcedthroughacivilaction ,|  undersection301.SeeLocal2322,_Int'l_ԀBhd.ofElec.Workersv. ( VerizonNew_Engl_.,Inc.,___F.3d___,___(1stCir.2006)[No.06  1169,slipop.at5]. 0  ` TheHospitalansweredthecomplaint.Itthenmovedfor , judgmentonthepleadings,seeFed.R.Civ.P.12_(c_),arguingthat  the2005reportsaroseoutofavariegatedsetoffactual 4 predicatesmateriallydifferentfromthefactualpredicateonwhich 0 theearliergrievancesreposedandthat,therefore,enforcement   constitutedaninappropriateavenueforrelief.The_MNA_Ԁopposed 8!" themotion.Byconsentoftheparties,thematterwasentrustedto "4$ amagistratejudgefordecision.See28U.S.C.636_(c_);Fed.R. $& Civ.P.73.Afteracomprehensiveanalysisofthe_Stutz_ԀAwardand  theapplicablelaw,thejudgeagreedwiththeHospital's \ characterizationandallowedthemotion.Thistimelyappeal X followed.   @( II. `  @  &Analysis ( x    ` Bothpartiesrelyheavilyonourpriorpronouncements @  regardingtheenforcementofarbitralawards.Consequently,we   startthere. H   ` Inpreviouscases,wehaverecognizedthat,atleast D sincetheSupremeCourtdecidedthesocalledSteelworkerstrilogy,  seeUnitedSteelworkersv.Am.Mfg.Co.,363U.S.564(1960); L UnitedSteelworkersv.Warrior&Gulf_Navig_.Co.,363U.S.574 H (1960);UnitedSteelworkersv.Enter.Wheel&CarCorp.,363U.S.  593(1960),thefederalcourtsaretoplayanarrowlycircumscribed P roleintheadministrationoflaborarbitration.See,e.g.,Boston L Shipping_Ass'n_,Inc.v._Int'l_ԀLongshoremen's_Ass'n_,659F.2d1,3   (1stCir.1981).Wehavebeenparticularlyloathtotaketoo T!" expansiveaviewoftheprecedentialeffectofarbitrationawards, #P$ emphasizingthatthisphenomenonisprimarilyamatterforthe $& arbitrator,notforacourt.  SeeCourierCitizenCo.v.Boston X&!( _Electrotypers_ԀUnionNo.11,702F.2d273,280(1stCir.1983).  (p#* Thisdoesnotdenote,however,thatunionsinvariablymustbe )%, consignedto_Sisyphean_Ԁlabors,forcedtoarbitratethesame x+&. grievanceagainandagain.SeeLocals2222,23202327,_Int'l_ԀBhd.  ofElec.Workersv.New_Engl_.Tel.&Tel.Co.,628F.2d644,649 \ (1stCir.1980).Inappropriatecircumstances,acourtmayorder X theenforcementofapriorarbitrationawardasameansof   resolvingasubsequentlabordispute.See,e.g.,BostonShipping, `  659F.2dat4.  \   ` Thetrick,ofcourse,isdiscerningwhatcircumstances   aresufficienttowarrantbypassingthenormalgrievance d  procedures.Eventhoughweenforcedtheoriginalarbitral awardin `  BostonShipping,wemadeclearthatthisresultwastheexception ( ratherthantherule;suchananodyneisavailableonlyif"itis  beyondargumentthatthereisnomaterialfactualdifference 0 betweenthenewdisputeandtheonedecidedintheprior , arbitration."Id.Wefleshedoutthatcommentarytwoyearslater,  stating that: 4 8 ` Onlywhereanarbitralawardisboth clearly L intendedtohaveaprospectiveeffectand 0 thereisnocolorablebasisfordenyingthe   applicabilityofthe existingawardtoa  ! disputeathand,willacourtordercompliance p!" withtheawardratherthanrequiretheparties F"# toproceedanewthroughthecontractgrievance #l$ procedure.#B%` x` x 4_Derwin_v.Gen.DynamicsCorp.,719F.2d484,491(1stCir.1983). % '  ` Readcarefully,thesetwodecisionsillustratetheproper J'") applicationofthestandard.Intheformercase,thenewdispute (F$+ wasidenticaltotheoriginaldisputeexceptfortheintervening *%- renewalofthecollectivebargainingagreement;accordingly, N,'/ enforcementwasanavailableremedy.BostonShipping,659F.2dat  4.Inthelattercase,werefusedtofollowthatcoursebecause \ theunionhadfailedtoshowanewandidenticaldispute.See X _Derwin_,719F.2dat491(warningthatthiscourtwouldnot"putits   imprimaturuponanarbitralawardinavacuum").Thiscautious `  approachtowardthehopscotchenforcementofarbitrationawards  \  vis__Ԅvisnewgrievancesissolidlywithinthemainstreamoflabor   lawaselucidatedbyothercourtsofappeals.See,e.g.,Local d  1545,UnitedMineWorkersv.InlandSteelCoalCo.,876F.2d1288, `  129597(7thCir.1989)(requiringthatfactsunderlyingprior   awardandthoseunderlyingsubsequentviolationbe"substantially h identical"inordertowarrantenforcement);UnitedMineWorkers, d Dist.5v.Consol.CoalCo.,666F.2d806,811(3dCir.1981)  (explainingthatenforcementofapriorawardrequiresacourtto l saywith"positiveassurance"thattheawardwasintendedtocover h thenewdispute);Oil,Chem.&AtomicWorkers_Int'l_ԀUnionv.Ethyl  Corp.,644F.2d1044,1050(5thCir.1981)(delineatinga p  substantialsimilaritystandard). !l"  ` Mindfulofthiswellmanicuredlegallandscape,our "$ primarytaskhereistodeterminewhetherthe_Stutz_ԀAwardwas t$& intendedtohaveaprospectiveeffect,andifso,whetherthereis  &p!( anycolorablebasisfordenyingitsapplicabilitytothenew '#*  incidents.Weturnnowtothattask. x)$,  ` Toitscredit,the_MNA_ԀattemptstomeettheHospital's   challengeheadon.Itdoesnotquestiontheapplicabilityof \ _Derwin_andBostonShippingbut,rather,contendsthatthecurrent X disputequalifiesforenforcementunderourhistoricstandard.Its   thesisisthatbecausethepriorandcurrentdisputessharea `  commonfactualnucleus"alloftheminvolveallegedviolationsof  \  Article18.07"thereisnomaterialfactualdifferenceand,   therefore,enforcementisappropriate.Tojustifythisresult,the d  _MNA_Ԁnotesthatthefirstpageofthe_Stutz_ԀAward"thethree `  paragraphremedialorderquotedabove"containsnospecific   referencetoThreeNorth.Buildingonthatfoundation,itargues h thatthe_Stutz_ԀAwardapplieshospitalwide.Itsfallbackposition d isthatitshouldatleasthavebeenallowedtoproceedinthe  districtcourtwiththeallegedviolationsthatoccurredonThree l North. h  ` TheHospitalcountersthatcontextiscrucialandthat,  takingcontextintoaccount,thereisatleastanarguablebasis p  forrejectingtheclaimthatthenewdisputeismaterially !l" indistinguishablefromtheolddispute(and,thus,forrejecting "$ theapplicabilityofthe_Stutz_ԀAward).Inmountingthiscounter t$& argument,theHospitalgoesbeyondtheremedialorderandpointsto  &p!( thearbitrator'sstatement,inthebodyofthedecision,that"the '#* mostimportantgoalofremedyinthiscaseis[to]assurethat x)$, thereisnorepetitionofthecircumstancesthatprevailedonat $+t&. leastnineoccasionsinMayandJune2002onThreeNorth"  (emphasissupplied).Italsoadvertstothearbitrator'ssingular \ focusonThreeNorthinhisdescriptionsofstaffingviolations. X Finally,itdirectsourattentiontofactsproperlybeforeus   evidencingthatithasmadesignificantstaffingchanges,onThree `  Northandelsewherethroughouttheinstitution,sincetheemergence  \  ofthegrievancesthatspawnedtheoriginalarbitration.In   conclusion,theHospitalpositsthat,giventhesechanged d  circumstances,thenewcomplaintscannotconceivablybethoughtto `  mimicthegrievancesthatformedthebasisforthe_Stutz_ԀAward.    ` Thedistrictcourtresolvedthe_MNA_'senforcementaction h onaRule12_(c_)motion.Theguidelinesapplicabletojudgmenton d thepleadingsrequirethecourttoacceptallthewellpleaded  factsastrue,drawallreasonableinferencesinfavorofthe l _nonmovant_Ԁ(here,the_MNA_),andgrantthemotiononlyifitappears h thatthe_nonmovant_Ԁcouldprovenosetoffactsthatwouldentitle  ittorelief.SeeRiveraGomezv.deCastro,843F.2d631,635 p  (1stCir.1988).Asthe_CBA_,the_Stutz_ԀAward,andfourofthenew !l" incidentreportswereannexedtothepleadings, #  3      ׀sothecourtcould "$ considertheminconductingits_tamisage_.See_Centro_ԀMedicodel t$&  _Turabo_,Inc.,v._Feliciano_Ԁde_Melecio_,406F.3d1,5(1stCir.  &p!( 2005);InreColonial_Mortg_.BankersCorp.,324F.3d12,15(1st  Cir.2003). \   ` Inhewingtothisprotocol,thedistrictcourtchoseto X lookbeyondtheisthmianconfinesoftheremedialordertothebody   ofthearbitrator'sdecisionandthefactscontainedtherein. In `  theend,itconcludedthatmaterialfactualdifferencesmarkedthe  \  twodisputes.Accordingly,itgrantedtheHospital'smotionfor   judgmentonthepleadings. d   ` Wereviewthedistrictcourt'sentryofjudgmentonthe `  pleadingsdenovo,subjecttothesamegroundrulesthatwere   applicableinthelowercourt.SeeGulfCoastBank&TrustCo.v. h _Reder_,355F.3d35,37(1stCir.2004);_Feliciano_v.RhodeIsland, d 160F.3d780,788(1stCir.1998). Evenwhenscrutinizedthrough  theprismofthisplaintifffriendlystandardofreview,the_MNA_'s l argumentfalters. h  ` Tobesure,the_MNA_Ԁfulfillsthefirstprongofthe  _Derwin_test:the_Stutz_ԀAwardplainlysatisfies_Derwin_'srequirement p  thattheoriginalawardbeprospective.Indeed,theverynatureof !l" ceaseanddesistordersistoprovideprospectiverelief.SeeP.R. "$ Mar.ShippingAuth.v.Fed.Mar._Comm'n_,75F.3d63,65(1stCir. t$& 1996).  &p!(  ` The_MNA_Ԁdoeslesswellwith_Derwin_'ssecondprong.On '#* itssideofthedecisionalscalesisthefactthathere,unlikein x)$, _Derwin_,thecomplaintallegesspecificnewviolationsanddoesnot $+t&. askustoplaceourimprimaturupontheearlierarbitralawardin  avacuum.Yettheallegationsofthecomplaintdonotshow,as \ _Derwin_demands,thatitis"beyondargumentthatthereisno X materialfactualdifferencebetweenthenewdisputeandtheone   decidedinthepriorarbitration."_Derwin_,719F.2dat491(citing `  BostonShipping,659F.2dat4).  \   ` The_Stutz_ԀAwardisannexedtoandthereforeincorporated   byreferenceinthecomplaint.Accordingly,thedistrictcourthad d  theobligationtogobehindthebarebonesoftheremedialorder `  andlookatthewholeofthe_Stutz_ԀAward.SeeBostonShipping,659   F.2dat4(relyinguponsupportingrationaleofarbitratorin h affirmingenforcementofaward). Takingintoaccountthetenorof d thearbitrator'sdecisionandtheavailabledescriptionsofthe  variousincidents(newandold),itisperfectlyplainthat,even l ifallofthenewdisputeshadtakenplaceonThreeNorth"andthe h bulkofthemdidnot"thatspatialcoincidence,standingalone,  wouldbeinsufficienttoshowtherequisitesimilitude.The p  additionalfactthatallthecomplaintsinvokedArticle18.07of !l" the_CBA_Ԁdoesnotsufficetoremedythisshortcoming._  #  4      _ԀOnthese "$ facts,theinterveningpassageoftimeandthechangednatureof t$& hospitalstaffingpatternsandpracticescombinetoforman  &p!( insurmountablebarriertotheapplicabilityoftheearlieraward.  Weexplainbriefly. \  ` The_MNA_'scomplaintmakesnomeaningfulefforttoshow X therequisitesimilitudebeyondthefactthatseveralofthe   incidentstranspiredonThreeNorthandcameundertheaegisof `  Article18.07.Itsargumentdoesnotfairlysuggest_identicality_:  \  asthe_Stutz_ԀAwardandtheincidentreportsreflect,staffingat   theHospital"likehospitalstaffinggenerally"isnotamatter d  ofsimplearithmetic.Tothecontrary,itrequiresasophisticated `  algorithmwithmanyvariables.    ` Thenatureofthiscomplexendeavorissuchthat h reasonablemindsmaydifferastothemostsalutaryratiosin d particularcircumstances.SeegenerallyJulieMarie_Bessette_,An  AnalysisinSupportofMinimumNursetoPatientRatiosin l Massachusetts,9_Quinnipiac_ԀHealth_L.J._Ԁ173,207(2006)(notingthe h viewthatstaffinginvolves"muchmorethanarbitrarynumbers,  includingjudgmentandcriticalthinkingbynurseadministrators p  andconsiderationofthepatient'sneeds").Asdocumentedinthe !l" _Stutz_ԀAward,staffingattheHospitalinvolvesvariablessuchas "$ patientacuityandnurses'skillsets.Commonsensesuggeststhat t$& ahostofothervariables(say,casemix,volume,availabilityof  &p!( paraprofessionalaides,overtimepolicies)willinfluencenurse '#* staffingneeds.Seegenerally_Kyndaron_Ԁ_Reinier_Ԁetal.,Measuring x)$, theNursingWorkforce,62Med.CareRes.&Rev.741,743(2005) $+t&. (listingnumerous"hospitallevelfactors"thataffecttheneedfor  nurses).Insuchadynamicenvironment,itissurpassingly \ difficulttoimagineasituationinwhichnomaterialfactual X differenceswouldexistbetweenstaffinginadequaciesarisingin   2002andkindredincidentsoccurringnearlythreeyearslater. `   ` Theproofofthepuddingcanbefoundinthetextofthe  \  _Stutz_ԀAward.There,thearbitrator"consciousofthetimelag   betweentheoccurrenceoftheunderlyingincidentsandthedateof d  decision"acknowledgedthattheviolationshehadfoundmightnot `  beongoing.Henotedthat,eventhen,theHospitalhadbegun   addressingstaffingconcernsbyraisingpatientcarehours,adding h nursinghoursonThreeNorth,andinstitutingaformalsystemfor d assessingpatientacuity.Theseparticularsystemicchanges,along  withtheordinarychangesinpersonnelandpatientmixthat l inevitablyoccurovertimeinanyacutecarehospital,presenta h morethancolorablebasisforconcludingthattheoriginalaward,  issuedtoremedyconditionsexistinginaparticularareaofthe p  Hospitalthreeyearsearlier,restedonafactualpredicatethatis !l" (or,atleast,maybe)materiallydifferentfromthefactual "$ predicateunderlyingthe_MNA_'slatestlitanyofcomplaints. t$& @( III.  &p!( @%Conclusion  '8#*  ` Weneedgonofurther.Theupshotisthatthedistrict )%, courtdidnoterrinrefusingwoodenlytoapplyandenforcethe \+&. priorarbitralawardtothe_MNA_'ssubsequentmisgivingswiththe  Hospital. \  Affirmed.