Bray Sheet Metal Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers Local Union No. 36-L
| Decision Date | 09 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:20-cv-00695-KGB |
| Parties | BRAY SHEET METAL COMPANY; EDWARDS METALS, INC.; KETCHER & COMPANY, INC.; and HSI, INC. D/B/A HARVEY SHEET METAL, INC. PLAINTIFFS v. INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS (SMART) LOCAL UNION NO. 36-L, AFL-CIO DEFENDANT |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
Before the Court is a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim filed by defendant International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Local Union No. 36-L, AFL-CIO ("Union") (Dkt. No. 11). Also before the Court is the Union's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' June 19, 2020, amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (Dkt. No. 15). For the following reasons, the Court denies as moot the Union's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' original complaint (Dkt. No. 11), and the Court denies the Union's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint (Dkt. No. 15).
The Union is a labor organization that represents employees in the sheet metal trade (Dkt. No. 12, at 3). Bray Sheet Metal Company ("Bray"), Edwards Metals, Inc. ("Edwards"), Ketcher & Company, Inc. ("Ketcher"), and HIS, Inc. d/b/a Harvey Sheet Metal, Inc. ("Harvey"), are sheet metal contractors that were previously members of a multiemployer bargaining unit that entered into several consecutive collective bargaining agreements ("CBA") with the Union (Dkt. No. 13, ¶ 1). The most recent agreement between the parties went into effect on June 1, 2017 ("2017 Agreement") (Id.). The parties disagree over the language of the 2017 Agreement, specifically whether the 2017 Agreement includes interest arbitration, as the Union contends, in Article X, Section 8, or whether that section is void ab initio, as plaintiffs Bray, Edwards, Ketcher, and Harvey contend (Id., ¶¶ 2, 3).
Based upon allegations in plaintiffs' amended complaint, the multiemployer bargaining unit that plaintiffs were a part of had a contract with the Union that went into effect on June 1, 2015, and was set to expire on May 31, 2017 ("2015 Agreement") (Id., ¶ 29). The 2015 Agreement included a provision stating that, if the parties reached an impasse, they agreed to submit the dispute to interest arbitration before the National Joint Adjustment Board ("NJAB") (Id., ¶ 30). In or about May 2017, the multiemployer bargaining unit began bargaining with the Union for a new agreement (Id., ¶ 31). On June 6, 2017, the Union and the multiemployer bargaining unit reached agreement on proposed economic terms (Id., ¶ 33).
According to plaintiffs, the multiemployer bargaining unit and the Union discussed but did not reach an agreement as to non-economic terms during the June 6, 2017, meeting (Id.). An agent of the Union, David Zimmerman, then sent a revised copy of the proposed agreement to some but not all of the contractors in the multiemployer bargaining unit and instructed the contractors to respond to the proposed changes (Id., ¶ 36). According to plaintiffs, no contractor ever responded approving the proposed terms in the revised draft of the agreement, and the Union's members later voted against the proposed economic terms (Id., ¶¶ 37, 38). Therefore, according to plaintiffs, the parties did not reach an agreement on any economic or non-economic issue and continued to negotiate (Id., ¶ 38).
During a bargaining session on or about August 10, 2017, Bray, Edwards, and Harvey, with aid of counsel, submitted proposals for revisions of the non-economic terms in the Union's standard form of union agreement for negotiation and consideration for the 2017 Agreement, according to plaintiffs (Id., ¶ 41). Plaintiffs assert that Bray, Edwards, and Harvey objected specifically to inclusion of Article X, Section 8, regarding interest arbitration and argued that the interest arbitration provision in the 2015 Agreement was void and unenforceable (Id., ¶ 42).
According to plaintiffs, Mr. Zimmerman left the August 10, 2017, meeting without reviewing or responding to the contractors' non-economic proposals and refused to set a date for further negotiations (Id., ¶ 43). Plaintiffs claim that, after several failed attempts to reach an agreement, the Union unilaterally declared impasse and submitted the dispute to NJAB (Id., ¶ 44). Bray, Edwards, and Harvey filed a response, arguing that NJAB lacked jurisdiction because the interest arbitration provision in the 2015 Agreement was void and unenforceable (Id., ¶ 47). They also argued that, if NJAB exercised jurisdiction, it should order the parties to continue negotiations because the Union had prematurely and unilaterally declared impasse without reviewing or responding to the non-economic proposals they had presented (Id.).
NJAB denied the contractors' motion and instructed them to submit supplemental information regarding their negotiating positions (Id., ¶ 48). According to plaintiffs, Bray, Edwards, and Harvey submitted proposed economic terms and limited their proposed terms to a one-year agreement, unless NJAB adopted the non-economic proposals they had previously presented to the Union, which included striking Article X, Section 8, from any successor agreement (Id., ¶ 49).
NJAB issued a written opinion and directed the parties to execute a three-year agreement with the same terms and conditions as were tentatively agreed to by the Union and themultiemployer group on June 6, 2017 (Id., ¶ 51). The NJAB found that the multiemployer group had no clear spokesperson and appeared before the Board with conflicting positions, so the Board looked for the most recent point in negotiations when the multiemployer unit held a cohesive position, which the Board determined to be the tentative agreement with the Union on June 6, 2017 (Id.). Therefore, the NJAB imposed the second draft of the CBA based on its finding that "the last consensus position held by the multiemployer group was the June 6, 2017 tentative agreement with the Local Union, which included Article X, Section 8," and, according to plaintiffs, that the multiemployer unit did not agree at the time of the arbitration (Id., ¶ 52).
Plaintiffs assert that, on September 18, 2017, counsel for Bray, Edwards, and Harvey objected to the NJAB decision via email (Id., ¶ 54). They objected to the NJAB decision in whole and objected specifically to the NJAB finding that the June 6, 2017, tentative agreement included Article X, Section 8 (Id.). Plaintiffs assert that neither Bray, Edwards, Harvey, nor Ketcher ever signed the 2017 Agreement or agreed to inclusion of Article X, Section 8 (Id., ¶ 55).
Plaintiffs represent that they each tendered timely their notice to withdraw from the multiemployer bargaining unit on December 23, 2019 (Id., ¶ 56). On February 24, 2020, plaintiffs submitted written notice to the Union of their desire to reopen negotiations for a successor agreement (Id., ¶ 57). In the letter, plaintiffs noted specifically their position that Article X, Section 8, imposing interest for a successor agreement was not in the 2017 Agreement because they contend that they had not agreed to its inclusion and that the 2017 Agreement was imposed via interest arbitration (Id., ¶ 58). Beginning in May 2020, plaintiffs each engaged in the process of bargaining for individual contracts with the Union (Id., ¶ 59).
The parties conducted bargaining sessions with the assistance of two mediators from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Services (Id., ¶ 63). Plaintiffs claim that, on May 26, 2020,the Union informed them that it intended to invoke the interest arbitration provision to settle a successor agreement to the 2017 Agreement (Id., ¶ 64). Plaintiffs contend that counsel for the Union made it clear the only way the issue of whether the 2017 Agreement included Article X, Section 8, would be resolved was by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (Id.).
Plaintiffs brought this cause of action on May 29, 2020, seeking a declaratory judgment that Article X, Section 8, of the 2017 Agreement is void and unenforceable as a matter of law and therefore that plaintiffs have no obligation to participate in proceedings before NJAB or to abide by any decision of it (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 8). According to plaintiffs, on June 3, 2020, the Union reiterated its intent to submit the dispute to interest arbitration before NJAB (Dkt. No. 13, ¶ 65). On that same day, plaintiffs assert that they provided written notice that they were terminating their relationship with the Union (Id.).
Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on June 4, 2020, seeking to prevent the Union from imposing another agreement via interest arbitration during this litigation (Dkt. Nos. 3, 4). According to plaintiffs, on June 8, 2020, the Union sent plaintiffs a grievance letter alleging that their termination violated the 2017 Agreement (Id., ¶ 66). On June 11, 2020, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the Union from proceeding with interest arbitration or grievance arbitration during this litigation (Dkt. No. 10). The Union filed a motion to dismiss on June 12, 2020 (Dkt. No. 11). Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 19, 2020 (Dkt. No. 13), and defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint (Dkt. No. 15). Further, on June 24, 2020, defendants withdrew the June 8, 2020, grievance and stated defendants would "be submitting the pending Article X, Section 8 interest arbitration disputeto the National Joint Adjustment Board (NJAB), and will wait for a decision from the NJAB on the Article X, Section 8 submission." (Dkt. No. 16-1).1
The parties' 2017 Agreement provides, in pertinent part:
To continue reading
Request your trial