Aleut Support Servs., LLC v. Stationary Eng'rs, Local 39
Decision Date | 18 September 2015 |
Docket Number | Case No. 15–cv–03348–WHO |
Citation | 131 F.Supp.3d 965 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | Aleut Support Services, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Stationary Engineers, Local 39, et al., Defendants. |
Richard Hill, Jason Evan Shapiro, Littler Mendelson, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
This case concerns two upcoming arbitrations. The first, set for September 21, 2015, is between Aleut Support Service, LLC ("Aleut") and three employee-benefit funds1 associated with Stationary Engineers Local 39 ("Local 39"). The second, set for October 8, 2015, is between Aleut and Local 39.
Aleut filed this action under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185, to compel the Trust Funds and Local 39 to combine the two arbitrations scheduled between the parties into a single tripartite arbitration. Aleut now moves for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Trust Funds and Local 39 from proceeding with (or, in the alternative, an order staying) the two arbitrations pending the resolution of this lawsuit.
Neither of the relevant arbitration agreements provides for tripartite arbitration. Lacking a contractual basis for its request, Aleut bases its motion on a line of cases requiring extracontractual tripartite arbitration to resolve disputes between two unions and a common employer over which union was entitled to provide employees for a certain work assignment. Those cases are very different from this one, and Aleut offers little justification for applying them here. Further, even if the cases were applicable, the discretionary factors they set out do not favor compelling arbitration in the circumstances of this action. Aleut has not made a clear showing of likelihood of success or serious questions going to the merits. Its motion is DENIED.
The facts of this case are largely undisputed. Aleut delivers base-operations support, grounds maintenance, and logistics/supply services to federal agencies, including the General Services Administration ("GSA"). Compl. ¶ 11. Local 39 represents approximately 11 individuals currently employed by Aleut on a GSA contract in Sacramento, California. Id. ¶ 12.
Aleut and Local 39 are parties to a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). Id. ¶ 13. The CBA requires Aleut to contribute to each of the Trust Funds. Id. ¶ 17. It also sets out a grievance procedure to resolve claimed violations of the CBA through final and binding arbitration before an impartial arbitrator. Id. ¶ 15–16.
The CBA requires Aleut to adhere to the obligations imposed on employers by the "Trust Agreements" underlying the Trust Funds. Id. ¶ 18. Each of the Trust Agreements provides for an "expedited arbitration" procedure under which the Trust Funds may set an arbitration before an arbitrator to recover allegedly delinquent contributions from employers. Hill Decl. ¶ 5 (Dkt. No. 16–1); Trust Funds Opp. at 5 (Dkt. No. 25). Each of the Trust Agreements also includes the following provision:
The Board of Trustees shall have the right, authority, and duty, in the name of the Fund or otherwise, as in its discretion may be deemed necessary or desirable, to demand and enforce the prompt payment of contributions to the Fund ..., without being limited or restricted by [any] grievance or arbitration procedures provided in a [CBA]."
Besocke Decl. Ex. C, Art. IV § 4.03 (Pension Trust Fund Agreement) (Dkt. No. 27–3); Besocke Decl. Ex. D, Art. II § 11 (Annuity Trust Fund Agreement) (Dkt. No. 27–4); Besocke Decl. Ex. E, Art. IV § 3 (Health and Welfare Trust Agreement).
Over the past approximately 11 years (since Local 39 first began representing Aleut employees) Aleut has "from time to time" subcontracted out maintenance and repair work required under the GSA contract. Compl. ¶ 19. Aleut states that this subcontracting has occurred "when bargaining unit employees are unavailable, in emergencies, and when bargaining unit employees do not have the skills or equipment to perform the necessary work." Id. No part of the CBA squarely addresses subcontracting or contribution to the Trust Funds on account of work performed by nonsignatory subcontractors. See, e.g., Mot. at 3–4 (Dkt. No. 16); Trust Funds Opp. at 5.
On June 17, 2014, the Trust Funds sent to Aleut a draft audit report stating that it owed them a combined total of $132,162.97 for the period September 1, 2009 through August 31, 2013, in part because a "nonsignatory subcontractor performed work covered by the [CBA] but was not reported to the [Trust Funds]." Besocke Decl. Ex. F (Dkt. No. 27–6). On July 15, 2014, the Trust Funds billed Aleut for this amount and requested that it pay them within 30 days. Compl. ¶ 20.
On or around to August 7, 2014, Aleut wrote to the Trust Funds stating that the CBA does not require Aleut to make contributions to the Trust Funds for anyone other than bargaining unit employees. Id. ¶ 24. The Trust Funds responded on November 24, 2014, stating that the CBA "requires Aleut to remit contributions to the Trust Funds for all covered work described in the CBA." Id. ¶ 25.
Aleut subsequently contacted Local 39 "to confirm that the CBA does not require Aleut to remit contributions to the Trust Funds for work performed by nonsignatory subcontractors." Id. ¶ 28. On or around January 27, 2015, after Aleut and Local 39 failed to reach agreement on this issue, Aleut filed a grievance against Local 39 pursuant to the CBA. Guerin Decl. Ex. 5 (Dkt. No. 16–14). The grievance concerns "Aleut's right to subcontract out work consistent with past practice, e.g., work involving emergency situations or work requiring specialized skills or equipment, just to name the most frequently occurring situations." Id. On or around March 13, 25, Local 39 responded with a grievance against Aleut, requesting, in part, a declaration that "Aleut does not have the right to contract out [bargaining unit] work." Id. ¶ 33. Aleut and Local 39 subsequently agreed to arbitrate both of their grievances during the same arbitration. Id. The arbitration is currently set for October 8, 2015 before Arbitrator Margaret Brogan. Id. ¶ 34.
On or around May 27, 2015, after the Aleut–Local 39 arbitration had already been scheduled, the Trust Funds informed Aleut that they had arranged an expedited arbitration pursuant to the Trust Agreements for the purpose of collecting the $132,162.97 billed to Aleut. Id. ¶ 36. That arbitration is currently set for September 21, 2015 before Arbitrator William Riker. Hill Decl. ¶ 5.
Compl. ¶ 37.
On July 5, 2015, Arbitrator Riker sent a letter to counsel for Aleut and counsel for the Trust Funds declining to stay or consolidate the Aleut–Trust Funds arbitration. The letter states in relevant part:
[T]he demands of the Labor/Management Trustees who serve on the [Trust Funds] have a separate fiduciary duty from the bargaining relationship between signatory Employers to the CBA and the Union. As such the Trustees are required to assure that all monies that are due and owing by signatory employers to the [Trust Funds] are paid ... in a timely manner, and if not, they are obligated to pursue the delinquencies through the [Trust Funds'] established collection process. Unless notified by the [Trust Funds], this arbitrator will hear the subject matter on September 4, 2015.2
Baldwin Decl. ¶ 10 (Dkt. No. 26).
Aleut states that Mot. at 6.
"[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, one that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion." Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (emphasis in original). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). Alternatively, if the plaintiff cannot establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, he may still obtain an injunction if he shows that he has raised "serious questions going to the merits" and that the balance of hardships "tips sharply" in his favor, so long as he also shows that the other two Winter factors are satisfied, i.e., that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest. SeeAlliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131–35 (9th Cir.2011) ; accordAngelotti Chiropractic, Inc. v. Baker, 791 F.3d 1075, 1081 (9th Cir.2015).
DISCUSSION
...
To continue reading
Request your trial