Building Industry Electrical Contractors Ass'n v. City of New York, 678 F.3d 184

PLA contracts (City PLAs) govern labor terms on City construction projects and require BCTC affiliation for workers.
City PLAs include union security, hiring hall utilization, fringe benefit contributions, work rules, no-strike clauses, and PLA governs in case of conflicts with CBAs.
BIECA and UECA challenge PLAs as NLRA preemption; district court held not preempted and dismissed remaining claims.
PLAs are analyzed under market participant exception to preemption, distinguishing regulation from proprietary purchase of labor services.
Court compares City actions to private development activities and relies on Boston Harbor doctrine to uphold proprietary procurement as non-regulatory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether PLAs are preempted by NLRA	BIECA argues PLAs regulate labor market and are preempted	City argues as market participant, PLAs are proprietary, not regulatory	Not preempted; PLAs fall under market participant exception
Extracontractual effects of PLAs on union contractors	PLAs compel renegotiation of CBAs, altering extracontractual relations	Extracontractual effects are ordinary PLA consequences; not regulatory	Extracontractual effects do not negate market participant status
Motives of City in adopting PLAs	Cronyism/political motive shows regulatory purpose	Motivation is not controlling; facial purpose shows proprietary aim	Motive inquiry rejected; permissible proprietary goals upheld

Boston Harbor v. Building & Construction Trades Council, 507 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1993) (market participant exception for public PLAs; procurement, not regulation)
Wisconsin Dept. of Industry, Labor and Human Relations v. Gould Inc., 475 U.S. 282 (U.S. 1986) (regulatory purpose; preemption when policy deters NLRA violations)
Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Brown, 554 U.S. 60 (U.S. 2008) (funding conditions with labor policy; not market-participant exception here)
Rancho Santiago Community College Dist. v. Colfax Corp., 623 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2010) (motive not dispositive; proprietary vs regulatory analysis remains)
Engine Mfrs. Ass'n v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 498 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2007) (context on public-proprietary vs regulatory distinctions)
Woelke & Romero Framing, Inc. v. NLRB, 456 U.S. 645 (U.S. 1982) (construction industry NLRA framework and preemption discussions)
Cardinal Towing & Auto Repair, Inc. v. City of Bedford, 180 F.3d 686 (5th Cir. 1999) (examine regulatory vs proprietary scope in municipal action)