157 F. Supp. 3d 173
D. Conn.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Ironworkers trade councils, locals, contractors, and trade orgs) sued New England Regional Council of Carpenters alleging the Carpenters used union-signatory subcontracting clauses in their CBAs to exclude plaintiffs from work and thereby violate Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and 29 U.S.C. § 187 (Count II).
- Disputed work: exterior building enclosure systems, curtain walls, metal roofing, and related components in CT, RI, and western MA on multiple projects (2008–2014) where construction managers/general contractors entered agreements with Carpenters to assign the relevant work to Carpenters’ signatories.
- The challenged CBA clauses barred signatories from subcontracting covered on-site work to non-signatory firms; similar clauses appear in plaintiffs’ own CBAs.
- Plaintiffs alleged the Carpenters and non-party contractors acted in concert to prevent plaintiffs from bidding, performing, or benefiting from the relevant work, and pointed to seven example projects and grievance/settlement communications.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting: (1) the NLRA §8(e) construction-industry proviso applies; and (2) the non-statutory labor exemption shields the CBA provisions from antitrust scrutiny — which also defeats the §187 claim.
- The court granted summary judgment for the Carpenters, finding the subcontracting clauses were part of valid CBAs, fell within the §8(e) construction-industry proviso, and were protected by the non-statutory labor exemption; plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §8(e) construction-industry proviso covers the challenged agreements | Proviso inapplicable because some contractors (e.g., construction managers) allegedly did not employ carpenters on specific projects or the CBA was displaced by PLAs | Proviso applies: agreements are between a labor organization and construction-industry employers, relate to contracting/subcontracting on-site, and arose in collective-bargaining context | Proviso applies; construction managers qualify as construction employers, CBAs (including prehire clauses) were part of collective-bargaining relationships, PLAs did not displace CBAs in the record |
| Whether the non-statutory labor exemption shields the subcontracting clauses from antitrust liability | Clauses, as enforced, exceed lawful CBA scope, impose substantial anticompetitive restraints and may involve extralegal pressure | Clauses further legitimate bargaining subjects (work assignment, conditions), are part of valid CBAs, and have not been shown to create anticompetitive conspiracy beyond collective bargaining | Non-statutory labor exemption applies; plaintiffs failed to show the clauses fall outside mandatory collective bargaining subjects or impose unlawful market restraints |
| Whether enforcement/attempted enforcement of CBA clauses gives rise to §158(b)(4)/§187 liability (unfair labor practice) | Carpenters threatened/enforced clauses causing contractors (e.g., Turgeon) to cancel MRS contracts, thus coercing business relationships in violation of §158(b)(4) and §187 | If proviso and exemption apply, enforcement of otherwise lawful CBAs cannot be an unfair labor practice; facts show unilateral cancellations by contractors in any event | No §158(b)(4) or §187 liability: the challenged enforcement concerned lawful CBA provisions protected by §8(e), and plaintiff offered no admissible evidence of a predicate unlawful §158(e) violation |
| Whether plaintiffs raised a genuine issue of material fact to defeat summary judgment | Plaintiffs pointed to grievance settlements, PLAs, and project facts to show overreaching enforcement and market harm | Defendants submitted CBAs, PLAs that incorporate or defer to CBAs, and evidence that challenged clauses were standard and part of bargaining; plaintiffs offered no contrary admissible evidence creating material dispute | Plaintiffs failed to produce sufficient probative evidence; summary judgment for defendants granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Connell Constr. Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, 421 U.S. 616 (1975) (construction-industry proviso applies principally to agreements arising in a collective-bargaining relationship)
- Local 210, Laborers’ Int’l Union v. Labor Relations Div., 844 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1988) (test balancing labor and antitrust interests; consider 1959 industry practices)
- Allen-Bradley Co. v. Local Union No. 8, 325 U.S. 797 (1945) (limits of labor-based antitrust immunity; unions cannot obtain unreviewable power to frustrate antitrust aims)
- Fibreboard Paper Prods. Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203 (1964) (subcontracting that replaces bargaining-unit employees can be a mandatory subject of bargaining)
- Hutcheson v. United States, 312 U.S. 219 (1941) (statutory antitrust exemption for union acts in self-interest that do not combine with non-labor groups)