M.R.S. Enterprises v. Sheet Metal Workers' Intern.

• Decision Date: 11 April 2006
• Docket Number: No. CIV.A. 05-1823(CKK).,CIV.A. 05-1823(CKK).
• Citation: 429 F.Supp.2d 72
• Parties: M.R.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 40, Defendant/Counter-claimant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Page 72

429 F.Supp.2d 72

M.R.S. ENTERPRISES, INC., Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 40, Defendant/Counter-claimant.

No. CIV.A. 05-1823(CKK).

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

April 11, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jonathan C. Fritts, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, Washington, James F. Grosso, O'Reilly Grosso & Gross, Framingham, MA, for Plaintiff.

Michael T. Anderson, Arlus J. Stephens, Davis, Cowell & Bowe LLP, Washington, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge.

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant M.R.S. Enterprises, Inc. (hereinafter M.R.S.¹) filed a Complaint on September 14, 2005, asking this Court to vacate a decision of the National Joint Adjustment Board ordering it to execute a collective bargaining agreement with Defendant/Counter-Claimant Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 40 (hereinafter Local 40). Presently before the Court is Local 40's [10] Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, in regards to which an Opposition and Reply have been filed. Upon considering the aforementioned filings, the operative pleadings, and the relevant case law, the Court shall GRANT Local 40's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award.

I: BACKGROUND

M.R.S. is a siding contractor with a principal place of business in Plainville, Connecticut. 1st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 8. Local 40 is a labor organization for sheet metal workers with a principal place of business in Rocky Hill, Connecticut. Id. ¶ 5. In 1998, M.R.S. executed a pre-hire agreement (hereinafter "the Agreement") pursuant to Section 8(f) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(f),² with Local 40 for successive contract terms.³ 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 6; Countercl., Roche Decl. ¶ 5; M.R.S. Opp'n at 1. M.R.S. was required to execute such an agreement with the sheet metal workers local union in its home state as a condition of its being a signatory to the National Siding and Decking Agreement. 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 6.

On December 22, 2004, M.R.S. sent a letter to Mr. David Roche, Business Manager of Local 40, notifying the Union that it wished to terminate the Agreement, effective on its expiration date of June 30, 2005. 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 13. Article X, Section 8 of the Agreement states the following:

[A]ny controversy or dispute arising out of this Agreement as set forth in the preceding sections of this Article, any controversy or dispute arising out of the failure of the parties to negotiate a renewal of this Agreement shall be settled as hereinafter provided:

(a). Should the negotiations for a renewal of this Agreement or negotiations regarding a wage/fringe reopener become deadlocked in the opinion of the Union representative(s) or of the Employer('s) representatives(s), or both, notice to that effect shall be given to the National Joint Adjustment Board.

Countercl. at Exh. A at 10 (Agreement). Upon notice, any dispute that cannot be resolved by a NJAB Panel representative will be decided by the NJAB as a whole. Id. A unanimous decision by the Board is final and binding on the parties. Id. Article XV, Section 4 of the Agreement states that a party may not repudiate the Agreement during its term or prior to negotiations for one additional successor term. Id. at 14.

On May, 17, 2005, Local 40 sent a letter to M.R.S. requesting a meeting to negotiate the upcoming contract. Countercl. ¶ 8. A meeting was initially scheduled for June 13, 2005, but M.R.S. cancelled it. Id.; Mot. to Confirm at 12. Local 40 and M.R.S. never met to discuss a successor agreement. 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 17. Local 40 filed a Notice of Unresolved Dispute with the NJAB on or about June 3, 2005. 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 19; Countercl. ¶ 9. On June 27, 2005, both M.R.S. and Local 40 participated in a hearing before the NJAB in Washington, D.C. 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 20; Countercl. ¶ 10. The NJAB issued a ruling the next day which stated that "[t]he parties shall execute a collective bargaining agreement, effective July 1, 2005, identical in terms to the [prior] agreement." Countercl. at Exh. C (NJAB Decision).

M.R.S. appealed the NJAB decision to this Court in an action filed on September 14, 2005. In its First Amended Complaint, M.R.S. alleges that the NJAB arbitration award was improper for four reasons-because the parties did not reach a deadlock; because M.R.S. terminated the agreement at its expiration; because M.R.S. had no obligation to negotiate with the union after termination; and because the arbitrators were allegedly partial. 1st Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 18, 22-23. Local 40 filed an Answer and Counterclaim on November 17, 2005, requesting that the Court confirm and enforce the arbitration award. Countercl. ¶ 1. Local 40 argues that the arbitration award should be confirmed because M.R.S. was bound by the Local 40 Agreement, M.R.S. had no right to repudiate the Agreement and avoid arbitration, a deadlock was reached, and M.R.S. cannot challenge the NJAB's partiality because it waived its opportunity to do so and agreed to the Board's composition in the Agreement. Mot. to Confirm at 2-7.

M.R.S. admits that it was bound by the 2001-2005 Agreement and summarily states that the Agreement could be terminated without bargaining but does not respond to the other arguments in Local 40's Motion to Confirm. M.R.S.'s Answer ¶¶ 1-14; M.R.S.'s Opp.'n at 1-6. Instead, M.R.S. opposes Local 40's Motion to Confirm by arguing that the arbitration award is now moot because M.R.S repudiated the Agreement on December 23, 2005 when it notified Local 40 that it no longer employs sheet metal workers. M.R.S.'s Opp.'n at 1-2. As a result of the arbitration award being moot, M.R.S. requests that the Court dismiss both the Complaint and Counterclaim. M.R.S.'s Opp.'n at 2. The Court hereby dismisses the First Amended Complaint at M.R.S's request. M.R.S's Opp'n. at 6. Local 40's Counterclaim is henceforth the only action before the Court.

II: LEGAL STANDARDS

There is a well-established line of precedent setting the parameters of a federal court's review of a labor arbitration decision, making it clear that this Court's authority to conduct such review "is extremely limited." Teamsters Local Union No. 61 v. United Parcel Serv., 272 F.3d 600, 604 (D.C.Cir.2001) (quoting Kanuth v. Prescott, Ball & Turben, Inc., 949 F.2d 1175, 1178 (D.C.Cir.1991)). "The federal policy of settling labor disputes by arbitration" requires that courts refuse "to review the merits of an arbitration award." United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U.S. 593, 596, 80 S.Ct. 1358, 4 L.Ed.2d 1424 (1960). This is true, even when "the parties ... allege that the award rests on errors of fact or on misinterpretation of the contract." United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. 29, 36, 108 S.Ct. 364, 98 L.Ed.2d 286 (1987); see also Major League Baseball Players Ass'n v. Garvey, 532 U.S. 504 509-10, 121 S.Ct. 1724, 149 L.Ed.2d 740 (2001). This is "[b]ecause the parties have contracted to have disputes settled by an arbitrator chosen by them rather than by a judge ...." Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. at 37, 108 S.Ct. 364. However, an arbitrator's award is legitimate only if it "`draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement,' and is not merely `his own brand of industrial justice.'" Id. at 36, 108 S.Ct. 364 (quoting Enterprise Wheel, 363 U.S. at 597, 80 S.Ct. 1358). The Court's role then is "confined to ascertaining whether the party seeking arbitration is making a claim which on its face is governed by the contract." Id. at 37, 108 S.Ct. 364 (quoting United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564, 567-568, 80 S.Ct. 1363, 4 L.Ed.2d 1432 (1960)). "[A]s long as the arbitrator is even arguably construing or applying the contract and acting within the scope of his authority, that a court is convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision." Misco, Inc., 484 U.S. at 38, 108 S.Ct. 364.

III: DISCUSSION

M.R.S. asks the Court to deny Local 40's Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award on the grounds that M.R.S. is no longer bound by the pre-hire agreement or the arbitration award because it no longer employs any sheet metal workers and therefore is able to unilaterally repudiate the Agreement. M.R.S. does not respond to the arguments Local 40 makes in its Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award, and therefore these issues are deemed conceded. After reviewing the record, it is clear that M.R.S.'s request must be denied for several reasons. First, M.R.S. fails to meet its burden of demonstrating that it no longer employs sheet metal workers. Second, even assuming that the M.R.S. did not bear this burden, M.R.S. still actually employs sheet metal workers as defined under the relevant law.

A. Jurisdiction and Venue

Though both parties are from Connecticut, jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court. In actions by or against a labor organization, jurisdiction is proper in any district in which a labor organization's officers or agents represent employee members. 29 U.S.C. § 185(c) ("... district courts shall be deemed to have jurisdiction of a labor organization (1) in the district in which such organization maintains its principal office, or (2) in any district in which its duly authorized officers or agents are engaged in representing or acting for employee members."). In addition, a motion to confirm an arbitration award may be filed in the district in which the award was made unless another court is named in the agreement on which the award was based. 9 U.S.C. § 9 ("If no court is specified in the agreement of the parties, then such application may be made to the United States court in and for the district within which such award was made."). Venue is proper in any district court that has jurisdiction over the parties. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). The instant Agreement does not name another court where disputes should be settled, see Art. X, § 7, and representatives for both parties appeared at...