Compass Constr. v. Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Reg'l Council of Carpenters of the United Bhd. of Carpenters
| Decision Date | 20 August 2012 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 2:12–cv–186. |
| Citation | 890 F.Supp.2d 836 |
| Parties | COMPASS CONSTRUCTION, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INDIANA/KENTUCKY/OHIO REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS OF the UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Ronald Lee Mason, Aaron Tulencik, Mason Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Dublin, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Russell Earl Carnahan, Michael John Hunter, Hunter Carnahan Shoub Byard & Harshman, Columbus, OH, Paul T. Berkowitz, Paul T. Berkowitz & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Defendants.
This is an action for damages under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 187, brought by plaintiffs Compass Construction (“Compass”), The Daimler Group, Inc. (“Daimler”), and TERiX Computer Services, Inc., (“Terix, Inc.”) against defendants Indiana/Kentucky/Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“Regional Council”), the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 200 (“Local 200”), Mark Moen, Doug Reffit, Wesley Osterhout, and Does 1–50. The Amended Complaint alleges unlawful secondary boycott activities on defendants' part in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(A), (B) and the illegal threatening and coercing an employer to assign particular work to employees of a particular labor organization in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(D). Plaintiffs also assert state law claims of defamation, false light invasion of privacy, and civil conspiracy.
This matter is before the Court with consent of the parties, 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for consideration of Defendants' Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint ( “Defendants' Motion to Dismiss” ), Doc. No. 25, and Defendants' Fed.R.Civ.P., Rule 26(c)(1), Motion to Stay Discovery ( “Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery” ), Doc. No. 26. For the reasons that follow, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and Defendants' Motion to Stay Discovery is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint contains the following allegations:
Regional Council and Local 200 are labor organizations that represent employees for the purpose of collective bargaining. Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 10, 11. Regional Council is engaged in a labor dispute with Compass because Compass allegedly fails to follow Regional Council's area standard wages and benefits. Id. at 20, Exhibit 1. Daimler is a general contractor that subcontracts work to Compass. Id. at 18, 27, 35.
Beginning in the winter of 2011, Regional Council and/or Local 200 started bannering, handbilling, and sending letters to parties who either directly contracted with Daimler to do construction work or were tenants whose landlord contracted with Daimler to do construction work. Regional sent one letter to Net Jets Aviation (“Net Jets”), and engaged in bannering and handbilling outside OhioHealth and Terix, Inc., premises.
The Letter. Bridgeway Partners LLC, as Net Jets' landlord, contracted with Daimler on or about April 2, 2011 to construct interior tenant improvements and a café within a building being constructed on Bridgeway Avenue in Columbus, Ohio. Id. at 17. Daimler then contracted with Compass to install and finish metal studs, drywall, and an acoustic ceiling in the building. Id. at 18. On or about February 7, 2012, Mark Moen sent a letter on behalf of Regional Council to the CEO of Net Jets. Id. at 19. The letter noted that “Daimler often uses subcontractors, including Compass, who fail to follow the Regional Council's area standard wages and benefits and, as such, the Regional Council has a labor dispute with certain subcontractors, including Compass.” Id. at 19–20. The letter asks the CEO of Net Jets not to use Daimler “so long as their subcontracts do not meet area labor standards.” The letter continues as follows:
We want you to be aware that our public information campaign against the above referenced Subcontractors will unfortunately impact all parties associated with projects where they are employed. That campaign will include highly visible lawful banner displays and distribution of handbills at the jobsite and premises of property owners, developers, general contractors, and other firms involved with projects involving a non-area standard contractor. We certainly prefer to work cooperatively with all involved parties but cannot sit idly by while these entities condone and/or support the non-area standards contractor.
If you agree to comply with the request we have made in this letter, or if our information about a non-area standard contractor being involved with any of your projects is incorrect, please call the undersigned immediately at 888–389–2828. Doing so will provide the greatest protection against your firm becoming publicly involved in this dispute through misunderstanding or error.
Id. at 22–23, Exhibit 1.
The Banners. I–A Preserve Building LLC, identified as Terix, Inc.'s landlord, contracted with Daimler on or about November 30, 2011 to oversee work being performed within a suite of an office building located on Frantz Road in Dublin, Ohio. See id. at 34, 51. Daimler then contracted with Compass to install and finish metal studs, drywall, and an acoustic ceiling in the building. Id. at 35. Plaintiffs allege that Regional Council and/or Local 200 “engaged in ... bannering and handbilling at the Frantz Road project.” Id. at 36. “The banner read[ ] ‘SHAME ON TERIX COMPUTER’ in large bold print. Id. at 37, Exhibits 5, 6, and 7. “The phrase ‘Labor Dispute’ ” was “written in smaller letters on either side of the banner.” Id.
OhioHealth entered into a contract with Daimler on or about August 18, 2011, for Daimler to oversee work being performed on Riverside Methodist Hospital in Columbus, Ohio. Id. at 26. Daimler then entered into a contract with Compass to perform renovations on the building. Id. at 27. Regional Council and/or Local 200 engaged in bannering at Riverside Methodist Hospital; the “banner read ‘SHAME ON OhioHealth’ in large bold print” and the “phrase ‘Labor Dispute’ was written in smaller letters on either side of the banner.” Id. at 28, 29, Exhibit 2.
The Handbills. Plaintiffs allege that Regional Council and/or Local 200 engaged in handbilling at both the Frantz Road project and Riverside Methodist Hospital. Id. at 28, 33. Regional Council allegedly continued to engage in bannering and handbilling at the Frantz Road project on at least five occasions after Compass completed the project. Id. at 46–47.
The handbills distributed at the Frantz Road project read “SHAME ON Terix Computer For Desecration of the American Way of Life.” Id. at 38, Exhibit 8. Underneath this phrase was “a picture which depicts a rat eating an American flag.” Id. “The Handbill further states:
A rat is a contractor that does not pay all of its employees area standard wages, including either providing or making payments for health care and pension benefits.
Shame on Terix Computer for contributing to erosion of area standards for carpenter craft workers. Compass Construction is performing work for general contractor Daimler Group on the Terix Computer project located at 5450 Frantz Rd., Dublin, OH 43016. Compass does not meet area labor standards for all their carpenter craft workers, including fully paying for family health benefits and pension.
Carpenters Local 200 believes that Terix Computer has an obligation to the community to see that area labor standards are met for construction work at all their projects, including future work. They should not be allowed to insulate themselves behind “independent” contractors. For this reason, Local 200 has a labor dispute with all the companies identified here.
Id. at 39. The handbill also “implored the general public to contact Terix Computer's CEO to ‘change the situation.’ ” Id. at 40.
The handbills passed out at Riverside Methodist Hospital were nearly identical to those distributed at the Frantz Road project, with the exception of the company name and project address listed on the handbill. See id. at 26–33, Exhibit 3.
Defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. When a motion to dismiss addresses a court's jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Mich. S. R.R. Co. v. Branch & St. Joseph Counties Rail Users Ass'n, Inc., 287 F.3d 568, 573 (6th Cir.2002). “Specifically, the plaintiff must show that the complaint ‘alleges a claim under federal law, and that the claim is substantial.’ ” Id. (quoting Musson Theatrical, Inc. v. Fed. Express Corp., 89 F.3d 1244, 1248 (6th Cir.1996)). Where, as here, the motion to dismiss amounts to a facial attack on subject-matter jurisdiction, a court must take the allegations in the complaint as true, just as it would with a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Gentek Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Sherwin–Williams Co., 491 F.3d 320, 330 (6th Cir.2007).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint. See Roth Steel Prods. v. Sharon Steel Corp., 705 F.2d 134, 155 (6th Cir.1983). In determining whether dismissal on this basis is appropriate, a complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and all well-pleaded facts must be accepted as true. See Bower v. Fed. Express Corp., 96 F.3d 200, 203 (6th Cir.1996); Misch v. Cmty. Mut. Ins. Co., 896 F.Supp. 734, 738 (S.D.Ohio 1994). The United States Supreme Court has explained that “once a claim has been stated adequately, it may be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 546, 127...
To continue reading
Request your trial