932 F. Supp. 2d 240
D. Mass.2013Background
- Five nonunion steel erectors sue Local Union 7 and related entities alleging antitrust violations tied to a wage-subsidy program (MRP) and coercive tactics to drive nonunion competitors out of the Boston market.
- The MRP subsidizes bids on targeted jobs by paying the wage difference between union scale and nonunion workers, funded via union dues under a 1993 master CBA with the BTEA.
- The MRP is funded through dues withheld from workers and distributed through Local 7 to participating employers; it applies even to federally funded Davis-Bacon projects.
- The First Circuit in ASE held the MRP could fail the nonstatutory exemption analysis, remanding to consider the entire conduct; juries later found Local 7 coerced certain fabricators into cutting off business with Ajax and D.F.M., awarding damages on labor-law claims.
- In 2012–2013, Local 7 renewed its antitrust summary-judgment motion; the court concluded the nonstatutory exemption does not apply to the entirety of Local 7’s conduct and, applying the rule-of-reason framework, found no antitrust injury from the MRP or section 8(e) agreements and granted summary judgment for Local 7.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MRP and related conduct fall within the nonstatutory exemption. | MRP funded via dues is protected by Section 7/equivalent exemption. | MRP is bargain-driven and shielded under nonstatutory exemption. | Nonstatutory exemption not applicable to entirety. |
| Whether the section 8(e) agreements and MRP constitute an antitrust injury. | Vertical agreements and subsidies harmed competition. | Vertical restraints analyzed under rule of reason; no market-power evidence. | No unlawful anticompetitive effect; no antitrust liability. |
| Whether the overall conduct of Local 7 has antitrust implications when viewed in aggregate. | Aggregate effect shows monopsony-like power via MRP. | MRP promotes competition, not suppresses it; no predatory pricing shown. | No aggregate antitrust harm; summary judgment for Local 7 on antitrust claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hutcheson, 312 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1941) (labor exemption from antitrust liability when union acts unilaterally)
- Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1996) (nonstatutory exemption context; labor policy balance)
- Phoenix Elec. Co. v. Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n., 81 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 1996) (example of legitimate labor goals under Section 7)
- Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc., 359 U.S. 207 (U.S. 1959) (per se group boycott vs. vertical restraints distinction)
- Nw. Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1985) (denial of relationships as antitrust injury; group boycott context)
- Cont'l Television v. GTE Sylvania, 433 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1977) (rule of reason framework for vertical restraints)
- Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (U.S. 1993) (predatory pricing under rule of reason)
- In re Connell Constr. Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 100, 421 U.S. 616 (U.S. 1975) (labor antitrust interplay; Davis-Bacon context referenced)
- Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (pleading standard to show genuine issue of conspiracy)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (parallel conduct insufficient without conspiracy evidence)