Local Union 257 v. Sebastian Electric
| Decision Date | 04 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1113.,96-1113. |
| Parties | LOCAL UNION 257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEBASTIAN ELECTRIC; Mike Barnes Electric; Rich-Ken Electric; Amick Electric, Defendants-Appellants. National Electrical Contractors Association, St. Louis Chapter, Counter Defendant-Appellee. LOCAL UNION 257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MIKE BARNES ELECTRIC, Defendant-Appellant. National Electrical Contractors Association, St. Louis Chapter, Counter Defendant-Appellee. LOCAL UNION 257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RICH-KEN ELECTRIC, Defendant-Appellant. National Electrical Contractors Association, St. Louis Chapter, Counter Defendant-Appellee. LOCAL UNION 257, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMICK BARNES ELECTRIC, Defendant-Appellant. National Electrical Contractors Association, St. Louis Chapter, Counter Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John Wingfield Ellinger, Jefferson City, MO, argued for appellants.
Arthur J. Martin (Kevin F. Fagan on brief), St. Louis, MO, argued for appellee.
Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and BOGUE,* District Judge.
This appeal arises out of four consolidated civil actions. Amick Electric, Mike Barnes Electric, Rich-Ken Electric, and Sebastian Electric (collectively referred to as "defendants" or "the defendant electrical companies") together appeal from a final order entered in the United States District Court1 for the Western District of Missouri granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff below, Local Union No. 257 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Local 257), and dismissing defendants' counterclaim/cross-claim against Local 257 and the St. Louis Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors Association (St.Louis-NECA). Local Union 257, IBEW v. Amick Elec., Nos. 94-4331, 94-4332, 94-4333, 94-4339 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 11, 1995) (hereinafter "slip op."). For reversal, defendants argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment against defendants on (1) Local 257's claim for enforcement of arbitration awards issued by the Council on Industrial Relations (CIR) and (2) defendants' counterclaim/cross-claim alleging that Local 257 and St. Louis-NECA had violated various federal antitrust laws. For the reasons hereinafter discussed, we affirm.
The following facts are generally undisputed. Local 257, a labor union for electrical workers, has members throughout central Missouri and engages in collective bargaining with employers who hire electrical workers. St. Louis-NECA is a multi-employer association which negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of electrical contractors. Defendants are small owner-operated electrical companies with few or no employees. During the years 1989 through 1991, defendants each executed a "letter of assent" setting forth an agreement between the signatory electrical company and Local 257 in which the electrical company expressly authorized St. Louis-NECA to represent the company "for all matters contained in or pertaining to the current and any subsequent approved" collective bargaining agreement between St. Louis-NECA and Local 257 covering residential electrical work; during the same period of time, three of the four defendants executed a similar letter of assent authorizing St. Louis-NECA to be their collective bargaining representative with respect to any labor agreement covering "inside" work.2See Brief for Appellee Local 257, Addendum at 1-7 (). While the letters of assent were in effect, St. Louis-NECA entered into residential and inside collective bargaining agreements with Local 257 for the period of March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1994. Article 1, as identically set forth in each of the two collective bargaining agreements, contained the following "interest arbitration" clause3:
Unresolved issues in negotiations that remain on the 20th of the month preceding the next regular meeting of the Council on Industrial Relations, may be submitted jointly or unilaterally by the parties to this Agreement to the CIR for adjudication prior to the anniversary date of the Agreement.
Slip op. at 4 (). The CIR is a joint industry and union arbitration panel.
The letters of assent signed by defendants contained the following provision concerning termination of the collective bargaining authorization granted to St. Louis-NECA: "It the authorization shall remain in effect until terminated by the undersigned employer giving written notice to St. Louis-NECA and to Local 257 at least one hundred fifty (150) days prior to the then current anniversary date of the applicable approved labor agreement."
By September 21 or 22, 1993, each of the defendant electrical companies had notified St. Louis-NECA of its intent to terminate its respective letter or letters of assent authorizing St. Louis-NECA to bargain on the company's behalf4; by September 22, 1993, each defendant had sent Local 257 notice to terminate its respective collective bargaining agreement or agreements. On November 23, 1993, Local 257 notified each defendant that it intended to negotiate successor collective bargaining agreements. Defendants refused to negotiate successor bargaining agreements with Local 257. On January 5, 1994, Local 257 notified each defendant that it planned to submit the issue concerning successor collective bargaining agreements to the CIR, pursuant to the interest arbitration clause in the 1992-1994 agreements. Thereafter, Local 257 submitted the matter to arbitration, and, on February 16, 1994, the CIR issued arbitration awards which, in essence, directed the parties to sign and immediately implement successor collective bargaining agreements for the period of March 1, 1994, to February 29, 1996.5
In the meantime, on January 14, 1994, Local 257 filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against each of the defendants. The regional director for the NLRB declined to issue complaints. Local 257 appealed the regional director's decision with respect to the charges against Amick Electric, and the general counsel for the NLRB affirmed the decision to deny relief. See Separate Appendix of Appellants at 359 ().
On August 5, 1994, Local 257 filed four civil actions in federal district court. Local 257 sought, pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, enforcement of the CIR arbitration awards issued against defendants. The district court consolidated the actions, and defendants together filed counterclaims and cross-claims (Counts I, II, and III) against Local 257 and St. Louis-NECA. In Count I, defendants sought a declaration that the CIR decisions are unenforceable. In Count II, defendants alleged that Local 257 had violated the LMRA. In Count III, defendants claimed that Local 257 and St. Louis-NECA had violated antitrust provisions of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., § 302 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, by participating in the so-called "Target Fund" — a fund, financed by Local 257, which provides partial payment of wages paid to members of Local 257 in circumstances where the employer has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Local 257.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a final disposition of the case, the district court held that the CIR decisions are binding and enforceable against defendants, slip op. at 6-13, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction defendants' counterclaim alleging that Local 257 had violated the LMRA,6 id. at 17-19, and dismissed defendants' Count III counterclaim/cross-claim alleging that Local 257 and St. Louis-NECA had violated federal antitrust laws, id. at 14-17. This appeal followed.
Enforcement of arbitration awards
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. The question before the district court, and this court on appeal, is whether the record, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see, e.g., Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2551-52, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-11, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman, 969 F.2d 664, 666 (8th Cir.1992); St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. FDIC, 968 F.2d 695, 699 (8th Cir.1992). Where the unresolved issues are primarily legal rather than factual, summary judgment is particularly appropriate. Crain v. Board of Police Comm'rs, 920 F.2d 1402, 1405-06 (8th Cir.1990).
Defendants first argue that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Local 257 and ordering the enforcement of the CIR arbitration awards. Defendants contend that the letters of assent which they each signed are void, thus rendering the 1992-1994 collective bargaining agreements unenforceable against them. In support of this argument, defendants assert that they were placed in an inferior bargaining position, that they were never informed of the interest arbitration clause, that they had no realistic opportunity to negotiate the terms of the collective bargaining agreements, and that Local 257 acted in bad faith. We reject these assertions as unsupported by the evidence in the record or the applicable law.
It is beyond genuine dispute that each of the letters of assent signed by the defendant electrical companies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
American Steel Erectors v. Local Union No. 7
...signatory contractors association protected by nonstatutory exemption from antitrust laws); Local Union 257, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Sebastian Elec., 121 F.3d 1180, 1186-87 (8th Cir.1997)(same).11 The fact of that combination takes the MRP out of the purview of the statutory exemptio......
-
Kalmar Indus. v. Intern. Broth. Team. Local 838
...927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983). 48. AGCO Corp. v. Anglin, 216 F.3d 589, 593 (7th Cir.2000). 49. Id. (citations omitted). 50. Local 58, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, AFLCIO v. S.E. Mich. Chapter, Nat'l Elec. Contractor's Ass'n, 43 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir.1995) (quoting Intl Org. of Masters, Mate......
-
Summit Sheet Metal, LLC v. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n
...and the employer provides timely notice of its intent to terminate the agreement. See, e.g., Local Union 257, Int'l Bhd of Elec. Workers v. Sebastian Elec, 121 F.3d 1180, 1185 (8th Cir. 1997); Sheet Metal Workers Int'l Ass'n, Local No. 162 v. Jason Mfg., Inc., 900 F.2d 1392, 1396-97 (9th Ci......
-
Intern. Broth. v. Hope Elec. Corp.
...the failure of the signatory union to obtain majority approval among eligible workers. Local Union 257, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Sebastian Elec., 121 F.3d 1180, 1185 (8th Cir.1997). The First Inside Agreement required Hope Electrical to pay wages according to a defined scale, hire new......
-
Table of Cases
...of N. Am., AFL-CIO v. Jewel Tea Co. 381 U.S. 676 (1965), 185, 200, 201 Local Union 257, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Sebastian Elec., 121 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1997), 205 Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908), 194, 208 Londono v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14 (Fla. 1992), 84 Lorain Journ......
-
Antitrust and Organized Labor
...found that such programs are entitled to the nonstatutory exemption, see Local Union 257, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Sebastian Elec., 121 F.3d 1180, 1186-87 (8th Cir. 1997); Phoenix Elec. Co. v. Nat’l Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 81 F.3d 858, 861-62 (9th Cir. 1996), but the First Circuit ha......
-
Regulated Industries
...subjects of collective bargaining’”) (quoting ASE I, 536 F.3d at 77); Local Union 257, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Sebastian Elec., 121 F.3d 1180, 1186-87 (8th Cir. 1997) (target fund provision was protected by the nonstatutory exemption because it primarily affected the parties to the c......
-
Table of Cases
...(C.D. Cal. 1979), aff ’ d, 649 F.2d 1354 (9th Cir. 1981), 1329 International Bhd. of Elec.Workers, Local Union 257 v. Sebastian Elec., 121 F.3d 1180 (8th Cir. 1997), 1648 International Boxing Club of N.Y., Inc. v. United States, 358 U.S. 242 (1959), 229, 616, 667, 1652 International Boxing ......