Certco, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union No. 695
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14398
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Certco expanded from one to four warehouses; Verona Road freezer facility closed and a larger freezer was built at Femrite.
- New facilities were staffed with non-union labor, paid higher wages, and offered a defined-contribution pension plan.
- Local 695 of the Teamsters claimed work moved from Verona Road to Helgesen, Femrite, and Daniels was bargaining-unit work and should be returned to union members.
- Arbitrator concluded that much of the labor at the two newest warehouses is bargaining-unit work under Article 12 and ordered Certco to return to bargaining-unit employees all work on transferred freezer products and certain Verona Road–to–Daniels transfers.
- Certco challenged enforcement in district court, arguing NLRB accretion decisions in 2006 (Helgesen) and 2010 (Femrite) limited arbitrability and barred the dispute.
- District court enforced the award pending appeal, holding accretion questions fall under Board policy, while arbitrator addressed Article 12 meaning in the specific CBA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrability of Article 12(1) dispute | Certco says accretion decisions bind non-arbitrability. | Union contends arbitrator may interpret Article 12, regardless of Board accretion rulings. | Arbitrability for Article 12(1) dispute affirmed; Board accretion rulings do not foreclose arbitration. |
| Effect of NLRB accretion decisions on arbitrability | 2006 Helgesen and 2010 Femrite decisions foreclose arbitrability. | These Board decisions preclude arbitration of Article 12(1) dispute. | Board accretion decisions do not affect arbitrability of Article 12(1) disputes. |
| Authority of Board decisions vs. arbitrator's interpretation of Article 12 | Board decisions override contract interpretations. | Arbitrator may interpret Article 12 within the CBA without conflicting with Board rulings. | Board decisions and arbitrator's Article 12 interpretation can be reconciled; arbitrator acted within authority. |
| Sanctions/attorneys’ fees on cross-appeal | Certco seeks reversal of denial of sanctions against the Union. | Union argues fee-shifting not justified; district court did not abuse discretion. | No abuse of discretion; district court's decision not to award sanctions was reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 375 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1964) (arbitrability and Board authority distinctions treated with respect to agency decisions)
- Litton Financial Printing Division of Litton Business Systems, Inc. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (U.S. 1991) (representation/accretion issues are Board policy matters, not contract interpretation)
- NLRB v. Hanna Mining Co., 382 U.S. 181 (U.S. 1965) (Board prosecutorial discretion can inform scope of disputes but not control outcomes)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1986) (arbitrability and the role of courts in deciding arbitrability questions)
- Yellow Freight System, Inc. v. Automotive Mechanics, 684 F.2d 526 (7th Cir. 1982) (Board's election decisions cannot be overridden by arbitrators; distinctions with pre-election actions)
- Continental Can Co. v. Chicago Truck Drivers Pension Fund, 921 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1990) (sanctions standards and arbitration cost-shifting considerations)
- Miller Brewing Co. v. Brewery Workers, 739 F.2d 1159 (7th Cir. 1984) (fee-shifting considerations and arbitral-award enforcement context)