Chicago Reg'l Council Of Carpenters v. Workers
| Decision Date | 01 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 10 C 2962,10 C 2962 |
| Parties | CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, Plaintiff, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS, LOCAL 73, Defendant. SHEET METAL WORKERS, LOCAL 73, Defendant-Counter Plaintiff, v. CHICAGO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
This dispute arose when two unions, the Sheet Metal Workers, Local 73 ("Sheet Meal Workers") and the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters ("Carpenters Union"), each claimed interest in work at the "Apple Store." An arbitrator awarded Sheet Metal Workers the work, but Carpenters Union argues that the arbitration award is invalid. The Parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, the Carpenters Union asking that I invalidate the arbitration awards, and the Sheet Metal Workers asking that I enforce them. For the following reasons, I grant the Carpenters Union's motion for summary judgment and deny the Sheet Metal Workers' motion.
The Carpenters Union includes various excerpts from a business seminar created by the law firm of Hogan Marren, Ltd. entitled "Business Agents' Training Session" from the winter of 2010 in their Rule 56.1 statement of facts. As part of the training session, the seminar addressed the resolution of jurisdictional disputes by the Joint Conference Board. Sheet Metal Workers object to these statements, specifically statements 2 through 6, on the basis of hearsay. I agree. Furthermore, the handout offered in support of these statements, Exhibit I, is hearsay within the meaning of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c). Accordingly, I will not consider statements 2 though 6 or Exhibit I of Plaintiff-Counter Defendant's Rule 56.1 Statement of Facts.
The instant complaint concerns two arbitration awards that were entered on April 17, 2010 and April 28, 2010 respectively. Both the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters ("Carpenters Union") and the Sheet Metal Workers, Local 73 ("Sheet Metal Workers") are labor organizations within the meaning of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"). The Carpenters Union and Sheet Metal Workers are members of the Chicago & Cook County Building & Construction Trades Council ("the Council"), and through their membership are bound to the Standard Agreement for the resolution of jurisdictional disputes between the Construction Employers' Association ("Association") and the Council. Article VII of the Standard Agreement recognizes that the Standard Agreement is an arbitration agreement.
Bayside Interiors, Inc. ("Bayside") is a signatory to a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the Carpenters Union, but is not bound to the Standard Agreement. Bayside was awarded a contract to install stainless steel siding at a construction project located at 1580 N. Clybourn Ave., Chicago, Illinois, known as the "Apple Store, " and Bayside assigned the work to its employees represented by the Carpenters Union.
In April 2010, the Sheet Metal Workers filed a grievance with the Joint Conference Board to challenge Bayside's assignment of the installation of stainless steel siding to members of the Carpenters Union. The Carpenters Union was provided advance notice of the April 15, 2010 arbitration hearing, yet decided not to attend. On April 17, 2010, the Arbitrator issued his decision awarding the Apple Store work to the Sheet Metal Workers. The Carpenters Union, however, refused to recognize the Arbitrator's award. On April 22, 2010 the Sheet Metal Workers filed a complaint with the Secretary of the Joint Conference Board alleging that the Carpenters Union had violated the Arbitrator's award. Again, the Carpenters Union was provided with notice of the arbitration hearing. On April 28, 2010 the Arbitrator found that the Carpenters Union had violated the April 17, 2010 Award and imposed a $10,000 fine upon the Carpenters Union for noncompliance with the prior Award.
Following the Arbitrator's non-compliance award to the Sheet Metal Workers, the Carpenters threatened to shut down the Apple Store jobsite if Bayside reassigned the work to the Sheet Metal Workers. On May 7, 2010, Bayside filed a charge at the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") alleging that the Carpenters Union violated Section 8(b)(4(ii)(d) of the National Labor Relations Act by threatening to picket the job if the work was reassigned. Three days later on May 10, the Sheet Metal Workers disclaimed interest in the remaining installation at the Apple Store. On May 12, Bayside withdrew the unfair labor practice charge against the Carpenters Union. The NLRB never issued a notice of hearing pursuant to 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act, nor did it hold a hearing concerning the work on the Apple Store Project.
The NLRB never issued a written opinion or findings concerning the jurisdictional dispute or the underlying charge.
Summary judgment should be granted when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of triable fact exists only if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Pugh v. City of Attica, Ind., 259 F.3d 619, 625 (7th Cir. 2001) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)).
Once the moving party has set forth the basis for summary judgment, the burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who must go beyond mere allegations and offer specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24 (1986). The nonmoving party must offer more than "[c]onclusory allegations, unsupported by specific facts" in order to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 773 (7th Cir. 2003) (citing Lujan v. Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n, 497 U.S. 871, 888 (1990)). A party will be successful in opposing summary judgment only if it presents "definite, competent evidence to rebut the motion." EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 233 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2000). I consider the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor. Lesch v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 282 F.3d 467, 471 (7th Cir. 2002). I will accept the nonmoving party's version of anydisputed fact only if it is supported by relevant, admissible evidence. Bombard v. Fort Wayne Newspapers, Inc., 92 F.3d 560, 562 (7th Cir. 1996).
The Carpenters Union seeks to vacate the two arbitration awards entered in favor of the Sheet Metal Workers by the Joint Conference Board of the Cook County Building Trades ("JCB") on the basis that the National Labor Relations Board, not the JCB, had jurisdiction over the dispute. In fact, the first award is mooted by the fact that the Sheet Metal Workers withdrew its claim to the remaining work at the Apple Store. Remaining then, is the $10,000 award entered against the Carpenters Union for non-compliance with the Arbitrator's jurisdictional ruling.
The Carpenters Union argues that because the JCB lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute, the arbitrator's awards in favor of the Sheet Metal Workers should be vacated. In the alternative, The Carpenters Union ask that I vacate the arbitrator's awards, including the $10,000 fine, because the Sheet Metal Workers disclaimed the work in dispute, and their disclaimer was accepted by Region 13 as a resolution to all claims the Sheet Metal Workers may have regarding the work in dispute. For the following reasons, I decline to enforce the $10,000 award entered against the Carpenters Union.
Both Unions have acknowledged that they are bound by the Standard Agreement. Parties to the Standard Agreement recognize the authority of the JCB to decide jurisdictional disputes. The Standard Agreement also contains a liquidated damages provision in the event that a party refuses to recognize a JCB decision or award. The Carpenters argue that the arbitrator appointedby the JCB did not have the authority to decide the jurisdictional dispute initiated by the Sheet Metal Workers because the employer awarding the work, Bayside, was not bound by the Standard Agreement giving the JCB jurisdiction over the dispute. Accordingly, Carpenters Union argues that it cannot be fined for refusing to turn over the work assigned to it by Bayside.1
Pursuant to the NLRA, the NLRB is empowered to decided disputes out of which unfair labor practices have arisen within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(D). Under Section 8(b)(4)(ii)(D), it is an unfair labor practice for a union to engage in or induce a strike or threaten an employer where the purpose is to force the employer to assign work to employees represented by that union rather than another labor organization. § 158(b)(4)(D). Section 10(k) of the Act provides that hearings on jurisdictional strikes will be heard by the Board unless the parties to the dispute have agreed upon methods for the voluntary adjudication of the dispute. The Board may proceed with determining a jurisdictional dispute pursuant to Section 10(k) of the Act only if there is reasonable cause to believe that § 158(b)(4)(D) has been violated. Operating Engineers Local 150 (R&D Thiel), 345 NLRB 1137, 1139 (2005).
Citing NLRB v. Plasterers' Local No. 79, et al., 404 U.S. 116, 133-134 (1971), the Carpenters Union argues that the employer assigning the work must also agree to be bound to the method for the voluntary adjustment of the dispute to remove the case from the jurisdiction of the NLRB. In Plasterers', the issue was whether an employer was a 'party' to the 'dispute' for purposes of section...
To continue reading
Request your trial