DiPonio Construction Co. v. International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers, Local 9
687 F.3d 744
| 6th Cir. | 2012Background
- DiPonio terminated the CBA with the Union on July 31, 2009 per Article XXV notice terms.
- The Union filed an NLRB ULP alleging DiPonio failed to bargain for a new CBA under NLRA §§ 9(a), 8(a)(5).
- DiPonio filed a district court action (Feb 11, 2010) seeking a declaration that the CBA was terminated and no CBA remained; later amended to include a breach-of-contract claim (Count II) under LMRA § 301(a).
- NLRB sought to intervene; ALJ denied stay; magistrate recommended exclusive NLRB jurisdiction for representational issues and deference for Count II to NLRB; district court adopted.
- District court granted Union’s dismissal motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and awarded partial Rule 11 sanctions; the district court later denied additional sanctions under Rule 1927; DiPonio appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case falls under NLRB exclusive jurisdiction or §301(a) concurrent jurisdiction. | DiPonio argues LMRA §301(a) provides jurisdiction for the §8/§9(a) dispute. | Union contends representational questions fall exclusively under NLRB (Garmon). | District court properly dismissed; NLRB exclusive jurisdiction governs representational issues. |
| Whether the CBA was entered under §8(f) or §9(a) and thus whether DiPonio had to bargain for a new CBA. | DiPonio asserts potential §9(a) duty to bargain; the CBA may be §9(a). | Union argues the matter is representational and §8(f) applies, allowing no duty to bargain after termination. | CBA is a representational issue under Trafftech; the dispute is primarily representational, not contract-based. |
| Whether sanctions under Rule 11 were proper for DiPonio's amended complaint. | DiPonio claims sanctions were improper or misapplied. | Union argues DiPonio filed a baseless claim to stall NLRB proceedings. | District court did not abuse discretion; sanctions upheld. |
| Whether Rule 38 sanctions on appeal are warranted. | DiPonio contests sanctions on appeal as frivolous. | Union seeks additional Rule 38 sanctions. | Rule 38 sanctions denied; appeal not wholly frivolous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garmon, San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (deference to NLRB when activity arguably within NLRA §§7–8)
- Trafftech, Inc. v. IBEW Local 71, 461 F.3d 690 (6th Cir. 2006) (test for dual jurisdiction; ‘primarily representational’ matters and Trafftech factors)
- Olympic Plating Indus., Inc. v. IBEW, 870 F.2d 1085 (6th Cir. 1989) (preemption vs. concurrent jurisdiction where board could resolve issues)
- Paper, Allied-Indus. Chem. & Energy Workers Int’l Union v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 300 F.3d 667 (6th Cir. 2002) (concurrent jurisdiction where NLRB action does not share facts with federal suit)
- Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union v. Facetglas, Inc., 845 F.2d 1250 (4th Cir. 1988) (preemption doctrine to prevent end-run around NLRA)