Reg'l Local Union No. 846 v. Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 January 2015
• Docket Number: Case No. 3:11–cv–658–AC.
• Citation: 83 F.Supp.3d 997
• Parties: REGIONAL LOCAL UNION NO. 846, International Association of Bridge Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL–CIO, by and through Luis Quintana, in his representative capacity as Business Manager; Regional District Council Welfare Plan and Trust, f/k/a Local 846 Rebar Welfare Trust, by and through its Board of Trustees; Regional District Council Retirement Plan and Trust, f/k/a Rebar Retirement Plan and Trust, by and through its Board of Trustees; and Regional District Council Training Trust, f/k/a Local 846 Training Trust, by and through its Board of Trustees; and Regional District Council Vacation Trust Fund, f/k/a Local 846 Vacation Trust, by and through its Board of Trustees, Plaintiffs, v. GULF COAST REBAR, INC., a Florida Corporation, f/k/a Gulf Coast Placers, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Oregon

83 F.Supp.3d 997

REGIONAL LOCAL UNION NO. 846, International Association of Bridge Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL–CIO, by and through Luis Quintana, in his representative capacity as Business Manager; Regional District Council Welfare Plan and Trust, f/k/a Local 846 Rebar Welfare Trust, by and through its Board of Trustees; Regional District Council Retirement Plan and Trust, f/k/a Rebar Retirement Plan and Trust, by and through its Board of Trustees; and Regional District Council Training Trust, f/k/a Local 846 Training Trust, by and through its Board of Trustees; and Regional District Council Vacation Trust Fund, f/k/a Local 846 Vacation Trust, by and through its Board of Trustees, Plaintiffs
v.
GULF COAST REBAR, INC., a Florida Corporation, f/k/a Gulf Coast Placers, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant.

Case No. 3:11–cv–658–AC.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

Signed Jan. 26, 2015.

83 F.Supp.3d 999

Jamie L. Reyes–Jones, Michael A. Evans, Hartnett Gladney Hetterman, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, Paul C. Hays, Carney Hays & Marsh, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs.

Robert B. Miller, Kilmer Voorhees & Laurick, PC, Portland, OR, Dale J. Morgado, Feldman, Fox & Morgado, Miami, FL, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

MICHAEL H. SIMON, District Judge.

United States Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation in this case on November 4, 2014. Dkt. 82. Judge Acosta recommended that (1) Plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm and Enforce Arbitration Award (Dkt. 78) be granted; and (2) Defendant's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. 75) be denied.

Under the Federal Magistrates Act (“Act”), the Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). If a party files objections to a magistrate's findings and recommendations, “the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” Id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3).

For those portions of a magistrate's findings and recommendations to which neither party has objected, the Act does not prescribe any standard of review. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 152, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985) ( “There is no indication that Congress, in enacting [the Act], intended to require a district judge to review a magistrate's report to which no objections are filed.”); United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc) (holding that

83 F.Supp.3d 1000

the court must review de novo magistrate's findings and recommendations if objection is made, “but not otherwise”). Although in the absence of objections no review is required, the Act “does not preclude further review by the district judge[ ] sua sponte ... under a de novo or any other standard.” Thomas, 474 U.S. at 154, 106 S.Ct. 466. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Notes to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b) recommend that “[w]hen no timely objection is filed,” the Court review the magistrate's recommendations for “clear error on the face of the record.”

Defendant timely filed an objection (Dkt. 87) to which Plaintiffs responded (Dkt. 88). Defendant objects to portions of the Findings and Recommendation respecting the standard of review that should apply to the Arbitrator's decision. Defendant further objects to the finding that a plausible construction of the arbitration award was to have “considered Gulf Coast's request for arbitration to be a concession that arbitration is appropriate under the Agreement and, accordingly, a waiver of any defense to arbitrability.”¹

The Court has reviewed de novo Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation, as well as Defendant's objections, Plaintiffs' response, and the underlying briefing in this case. The Court agrees with Judge Acosta's reasoning and adopts the Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendations. Dkt. 82. Plaintiffs' Motion to Confirm and Enforce Arbitration Award (Dkt. 78) is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Vacate Arbitration Award (Dkt. 75) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

ACOSTA, United States Magistrate Judge:

Introduction

Plaintiffs Regional Local Union No. 846 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, AFL–CIO (the “Union”), and the Regional District Council Welfare Trust, the Regional District Council Pension Trust, the Regional District Council Training Trust, and the Regional District Council Vacation Trust (collectively “Plaintiff Trusts”), filed this action to recover amounts allegedly due them from defendant Gulf Coast Rebar, Inc., (“Gulf Coast”) pursuant to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement entered into between the Union and Gulf Coast on March 13, 2009 (the “Agreement”). On October 22, 2012, this court granted Gulf Coast's motion to compel arbitration of the Union's claim brought under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. §§ 141 –197 ) (the “LMRA”), and stayed the Plaintiff Trusts' claims brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 –1114 ) (the “ERISA”). On April 9, 2014, the arbitrator issued a decision in favor of the Union (the “Award”). Presently before the court are Gulf Coast's motion to vacate the Award and the Union's motion to confirm and enforce the Award.

The court finds that under the standard of review applicable to either the LMRA or the Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. §§ 1 –16 ) (the “Act”), and in light of the

83 F.Supp.3d 1001

extreme deference owed the Award under both acts, the Award did not violate the essence of the Agreement, was not in manifest disregard of the law, and specifically addressed the procedural arbitrability issues. Accordingly, the court should confirm the Award.

Background

The Agreement provides for the establishment of four jointly-administered fringe benefit plans to be named: (1) the Rebar Retirement Plan and Trust; (2) the Local 846 Rebar Welfare Trust; (3) the Local 846 Vacation Trust; and (4) the Local 846 Training Trust. (Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 8.) Gulf Coast agreed to be bound by the terms of each of these trusts and to make timely payments into the trusts in the amounts set forth in “Appendix A” for employees covered by the Agreement. (Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 8–9.) Gulf Coast also agreed to make contributions to “home local pension, health and welfare, annuity, vacation and other welfare benefit funds” in accordance with the home trust funds' rules and at the customary rates set by the home trust funds on behalf of “all key employees who designate home Local Unions other than the signatory Local Union”; to “check-off” from the wages of employees who voluntarily authorize such deductions for union dues, working assessments, and standard initiation fees; and to remit such amounts “checked-off” to the participating unions on or before the 15th day of each month, together with a list of the employees covered by the payment. (Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 9–10.)

The Agreement incorporated the terms of the various trust and plan documents, as they currently existed and may be amended from time to time, and required payment to the fringe benefit funds by the 15th day of the month following the month in which work was performed. (Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 9.) Failure to make such payment would “result in the accrual of interest at a rate of one and one-half percent (1 ½ %) per month for unpaid balances, plus such accounting fees, attorneys fees, auditing fees, and other expert fees as are necessary if litigation is filed to collect said delinquent amounts.” (Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 9.) Additionally, failure to pay all contributions and file all reports by the 15th of the month following the month in which the work was performed allowed the unions to engage in a work stoppage, strike or other legal economic activity, as well as pursue the grievance procedure set forth in the Agreement, after five days' notice to Gulf Coast. (Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 9–10.)

The Agreement created a three-step grievance process to resolve “[a]ny question arising out of this Agreement involving its interpretation or application, excluding trades jurisdictional disputes.” (Am. Compl. Ex. 1 at 5.)

Step 1. When any employee or the Union subject to the provisions of this Agreement believes a violation of this Agreement has occurred, acting through the Local Union steward, within three (3) working days after the occurrence or nonoccurrence giving rise to the dispute, said employee or the Union shall give notice to the Employer stating the section alleged to have been violated. Failure to raise any dispute within three (3) working days of the occurrence or non-occurrence shall constitute a waiver of the right asserted by the employee. The dispute shall be discussed by the aggrieved employee with the steward and the Employer's representative at the construction site. If the dispute is not settled within twenty-four (24) hours, Step 2 of the Grievance Procedure may be pursued no later than two (2)

...