P&A Constr. Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 825
| Citation | 19 F.4th 217 |
| Decision Date | 18 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 20-1634,20-1634 |
| Parties | P&A CONSTRUCTION INC.; Utility Systems Inc., Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 825 ; United Steel Paper and Forestry Rubber Manufacturing Energy Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union Local 15024 AFL-CIO |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit) |
Othiamba N. Lovelace [ARGUED], Ronald L. Tobia, Tobia & Lovelace, 5 Sicomac Road, Suite 177, North Haledon, NJ 07508, Counsel for Appellant
Gregory J. Hazley, Alexander Hemsley, III, Richard F.X. Regan [ARGUED], DeCotiis FitzPatrick Cole & Giblin, 61 South Paramus Road, Suite 250, Paramus, NJ 07652, Counsel for Appellee Local 825
Before: AMBRO, KRAUSE, and PHIPPS, Circuit Judges
KRAUSE, Circuit Judge In a typical collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"), a single employer and a single union contract to arbitrate disputes over specified terms and conditions of employment, and their contract is enforceable in federal court under the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). See 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) ; United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co. , 363 U.S. 574, 577–79, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). Today we address a much less typical situation and weigh in on an open question in our Circuit: Does the LMRA authorize a district court to compel joint arbitration between an employer and two separate labor unions, each of which has its own CBA with the common employer, when those unions claim the same work under their respective CBAs?1 We conclude that joint arbitration is available under the LMRA as a general matter, either before or after the bipartite arbitration award at issue has become final. As a result, we must also consider whether Appellants here, which are two at least nominally separate companies, can invoke that general rule. Because we conclude they cannot on this record, we will affirm the District Court's order denying joint arbitration.
In 1972, P&A Construction, Inc., which builds roadway and utility projects, signed a CBA with United Steelworkers Local 15024. But in the early 1980s, according to P&A's Secretary-Treasurer Benedita Barrows, Local 825 Operating Engineers pressured P&A to employ them instead, so P&A created Utility Systems, Inc. ("Utility") to hire Local 825 workers. Utility signed a CBA with Local 825.
That resolved one problem, but it gave rise to another. From 2016 to 2018, Utility subcontracted a number of construction projects to P&A, which used its workers from Local 15024 on those jobs. But Utility's CBA with Local 825 required it to use only Local 825 workers, and Utility could only subcontract work if the subcontractor also agreed to abide by the terms of Utility's CBA with Local 825. Relying on those provisions, Local 825 brought multiple grievances against Utility, alleging that its subcontracting to P&A violated their CBA. In October 2018, Local 825's grievances proceeded to arbitration, where Local 825 sought only money damages.
At that point, Utility and P&A found themselves in a quandary. P&A feared that if Local 825's arbitrator ruled that Utility's subcontractors must use Local 825 workers, that might force P&A to violate its CBA with Local 15024, which requires P&A to use Local 15024 workers. P&A and Utility therefore tried to bring both unions to the same table by filing an LMRA suit in the District Court and requesting an order compelling joint arbitration with both employers and both unions.
There was just one problem: P&A is not a party to Utility's CBA with Local 825, and Utility is not a party to P&A's CBA with Local 15204. So P&A and Utility sought to persuade the District Court that it could and should compel joint arbitration in this circumstance, and that P&A and Utility qualified as a single or joint employer under the LMRA, by analogy with the single and joint employer doctrines under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). In the alternative, they requested arbitration under the so-called Harmony Agreement—a contract between Local 15024's parent union, the United Steelworkers International ("USW"), and Local 825's parent union, North America's Building Trades Union ("NABTU"), which allows for the arbitration of jurisdictional disputes between the USW and NABTU.
The District Court rejected each of those arguments. It accepted that it could enforce joint arbitration under the LMRA but determined that it would be inappropriate here because there was insufficient risk that P&A and Utility would face conflicting arbitration awards simultaneously granting the same jobs to both Local 825 and Local 15024. P&A Const., Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 825 , No. 19-cv-18247, 2020 WL 773128, at *3 (D.N.J. Feb. 18, 2020). It also determined, after assessing the record of the employers' histories and relationship with each other, that P&A and Utility could not be deemed a single or joint employer. Id. Finally, it denied arbitration under the Harmony Agreement because "no party to this litigation is a party to the Harmony Agreement." Id. at *4 n.7. This appeal followed.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which gives us authority over "final decisions of the district courts." Here, although P&A and Utility initially sought additional forms of relief, they withdrew those requests with prejudice in a joint stipulation of dismissal in the District Court. Thus, as the parties confirmed at oral argument, there are no remaining claims before the District Court, and its February 18, 2020, order denying joint arbitration constitutes a final order. See State Nat'l Ins. Co. v. County of Camden , 824 F.3d 399, 408 (3d Cir. 2016) ; DL Res., Inc. v. FirstEnergy Sols. Corp. , 506 F.3d 209, 216 (3d Cir. 2007).
Assuming a district court has authority to compel joint arbitration, we review for abuse of discretion its decision whether to do so. See Emery Air Freight, Corp. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Local 295 , 185 F.3d 85, 91–92 (2d Cir. 1999).
P&A and Utility seek to compel Local 825 and Local 15024 to participate in joint arbitration with them under the LMRA, either (A) viewing P&A and Utility as single or joint employers, or (B) under the auspices of the Harmony Agreement, treating the commitments of the parent unions as binding on Local 825 and Local 15024. We address these issues in turn.
To determine whether P&A and Utility are entitled to an order compelling joint arbitration under the LMRA, we must decide: (1) whether the LMRA generally authorizes federal courts to order joint arbitration; (2) when joint arbitration is available, i.e. , only before or also after the relevant bipartite arbitration award has become final; (3) how a district court should decide whether to compel joint arbitration in a particular case; and (4) who can seek to compel joint arbitration—specifically, under what circumstances two employers may be deemed a single or joint employer for purposes of compelling joint arbitration with two or more of their unions.
To determine whether joint arbitration is enforceable under the LMRA, the Supreme Court has instructed us to look to the text of the statute, the "policy of th[at] legislation," and the broader "policy of our national labor laws" to derive "the rule that will best effectuate the federal policy." Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. , 353 U.S. 448, 456–57, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957). Using those guideposts, the six Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue have concluded unanimously that joint arbitration is enforceable under the LMRA.2 Previously, we too have observed, although in dictum, that "on a proper record a District Court clearly would have the authority to provide for joint arbitration of a labor dispute." Window Glass Cutters of Am. v. Am. St. Gobain Corp. , 428 F.2d 353, 355 (3d Cir. 1970) (citing Columbia Broad. Sys. , 414 F.2d at 1328 ). Today, we adopt that view precedentially.3
Three features of "the policy of our national labor laws," Lincoln Mills , 353 U.S. at 456, 77 S.Ct. 912, convince us to join the consensus.
First, joint arbitration advances the policy embodied in the text of the LMRA: "that federal courts should enforce [CBAs]." Id. at 455, 77 S.Ct. 912. The LMRA gives district courts jurisdiction over "[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization," 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and thus makes clear that an "agreement to arbitrate ... contained in [a CBA] should be specifically enforced" by the federal courts, Lincoln Mills , 353 U.S. at 451, 77 S.Ct. 912. A CBA, however, is "more than a contract"—it is a "generalized code" for a "particular plant" that must "govern a myriad of cases which the draftsmen cannot wholly anticipate." Warrior & Gulf , 363 U.S. at 578–79, 80 S.Ct. 1347. And, "to interpret such an agreement, it is [sometimes] necessary to consider the scope of other related collective bargaining agreements," especially when they are "resorted to for the purpose of settling a jurisdictional dispute over work assignments." Transp.-Commc'n Emps. Union v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. , 385 U.S. 157, 161, 87 S.Ct. 369, 17 L.Ed.2d 264 (1966). Joint arbitration simply provides a forum in which to do so—conjoining bipartite arbitrations in which "both unions ha[ve] contracts with the same employer," claim the same jobs, and have arbitration provisions covering those jobs. CBS , 414 F.2d at 1328. By holding the parties to their respective...
To continue reading
Request your trial