Lippert Tile Co. v. International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen
724 F.3d 939
7th Cir.2013Background
- Lippert Tile (union shop) operated in Milwaukee area; in 2004 the Lippert brothers created DeanAlan (non-union) and Lippert Group (management services) to compete in the non-union market (double-breasting).
- CBA between Lippert Tile and the union prohibited transferring work unless the transferee agreed in writing to be bound by the CBA; the CBA created a six-member Joint Arbitration Committee (JAC) — three employer and three union representatives — to resolve disputes.
- The union filed a grievance with the JAC alleging Lippert Tile assigned work to DeanAlan without applying CBA terms; the companies argued DeanAlan and Lippert Group were not parties to the CBA and thus grievance was not arbitrable.
- The JAC found the three companies to be a “single employer,” ordered make‑whole relief and application of union benefits to DeanAlan workers; one union director who filed the grievance sat on the JAC.
- The companies petitioned in federal court to vacate the award; district court enforced the award on summary judgment (finding single‑employer status and declining to decide bargaining‑unit issue de novo); companies appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Union) | Defendant's Argument (Companies) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JAC lacked jurisdiction because DeanAlan workers were not in same bargaining unit | JAC decision should be enforced; companies waived new bargaining‑unit objection by not raising it before JAC | No arbitrability because no NLRB finding that DeanAlan workers are in same bargaining unit; such threshold required | Waived: companies failed to raise bargaining‑unit argument before JAC, so court refused to consider it on enforcement review |
| Whether DeanAlan and Lippert Group are bound by CBA under "single employer" doctrine | Union: entities are sufficiently integrated and centrally controlled; thus arbitrable under CBA | Companies: separate corporations, different officers, accounts, customers and employees; not a single employer | Affirmed single‑employer: court found interrelated operations, common management/control and common ownership supported treating them as one for arbitrability |
| Whether Leckwee’s participation on the JAC (he filed the grievance) tainted award | N/A for union beyond defending committee composition | Participation created evident partiality and violated fairness; award should be vacated | Rejected: CBA required only equal employer/union representation; nothing forbade a filer sitting on JAC, so no contractual violation supporting vacatur |
| Standard/scope of court review over JAC award | Arbitration award should be enforced unless CBA was violated or arbitrator exceeded authority | Companies urged broader FAA‑style review for evident partiality and other fairness defects | Section 301 review limited to contract violations and arbitrability questions; FAA "evident partiality" standard not freely imported into LMRA enforcement review |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Drivers, Local 449 v. Riss & Co., 372 U.S. 517 (arbitration awards under CBA enforceable in federal court)
- United Steelworkers v. Am. Mfg. Co., 363 U.S. 564 (court confined to whether claim is governed by contract)
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574 (judicial inquiry limited to whether parties agreed to arbitrate)
- AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (courts should not decide merits if dispute is arbitrable)
- South Prairie Constr. Co. v. Local No. 627, 425 U.S. 800 (four‑factor single employer test referenced)
- Trs. of Pension, Welfare, and Vacation Fringe Benefit Funds of IBEW Local 701 v. Favia Elec. Co., Inc., 995 F.2d 785 (Seventh Circuit discussion applying single‑employer factors)
- Ganton Techs., Inc. v. UAW, 358 F.3d 459 (failure to raise argument before arbitrator waives it in enforcement proceedings)
- Merryman Excavation, Inc. v. Int’l Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, 639 F.3d 286 (LMRA Section 301 review differs from FAA review; limited to contract violations)