National Labor Relations Board v. Seedorff Masonry, Inc., 812 F.3d 1158

Background

Seedorff Masonry, a masonry subcontractor, signed a 1988 agreement agreeing to be bound by QCBA collective-bargaining agreements (CBAs) and did not give the required 90‑day revocation notice before the 2010 QC Agreement took effect (a § 8(f) pre-hire CBA).
Seedorff also had § 8(f) CBAs with the Laborers and historically assigned mason‑tending/equipment work to Laborers; Local 150 (Operators) disputed those assignments.
Local 150 filed grievances (pay‑in‑lieu back‑pay claims) after arbitration split outcomes: an arbitrator found Seedorff properly assigned certain work to Laborers on the prison project but Local 150 pursued additional grievances.
Seedorff sent an April 12, 2012 letter denying the existence of a current CBA with Local 150 and offering limited settlement; Local 150 then filed an unfair‑labor‑practice charge alleging repudiation of the 2010 QC Agreement.
The NLRB ALJ and Board found Seedorff violated §§ 8(a)(5) and (1) by repudiating the 2010 QC Agreement and ordered back pay to Local 150 members; the Eighth Circuit denied enforcement and vacated the Board's Order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Seedorff bound by the 2010 QC Agreement?	QCBA/Local 150: Seedorff had contractually agreed in 1988 to be bound by successor QCBA agreements and did not timely revoke that authorization.	Seedorff: It consistently informed Local 150 it was not bound and never consented to a CBA with Local 150.	Held: Substantial evidence supported that Seedorff was bound by the 2010 QC Agreement.
Did the April 12 letter constitute repudiation (§ 8(a)(5))?	Local 150: The letter was a clear and unequivocal repudiation of the CBA.	Seedorff: The letter merely asserted defenses and arbitration/§ 10(k) remedies were available; context shows no refusal to bargain.	Held: Court reversed Board — letter, in context, was not shown to be a repudiation; Board failed to analyze contract context and arbitrability.
Was the repudiation claim time‑barred under § 10(b)?	Local 150: Charge was timely; repudiation occurred with the April 2012 letter.	Seedorff: Earlier conduct (hiring Laborers, not paying Operator benefits) provided clear notice more than six months before charge.	Held: Court found the Board failed to consider repudiation by earlier conduct; if repudiation occurred prior to the § 10(b) window, complaint must be dismissed.
Does the single‑employee‑unit exception allow unilateral repudiation?	Local 150: The bargaining unit consisted of more than one Operator covered by the QC Agreement; Seedorff failed to prove single‑employee unit.	Seedorff: Had not employed Local 150 members for years (at most a single Operator at times) so Board lacks power to enforce a one‑person unit; thus repudiation defense applies.	Held: Court held the ALJ misallocated burdens and erred: Marsh’s testimony required the General Counsel to prove the unit had more than one employee; Board failed to resolve the overlapping‑coverage/practice issue.

Key Cases Cited

Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260 (1983) (§ 8(f) pre‑hire agreements permit bargaining absent majority status; context matters for repudiation)
McKenzie Eng’g Co. v. NLRB, 303 F.3d 902 (8th Cir. 2002) (repudiation of § 8(f) agreements violates § 8(a)(5); look beyond contract language to practice and custom)
McKenzie Eng’g Co. v. NLRB, 182 F.3d 622 (8th Cir. 1999) (in resolving jurisdictional disputes, Board may consider practice, usage, and custom)
Cedar Valley Corp. v. NLRB, 977 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1992) (automatic renewal in § 8(f) agreements can extend no‑repudiation rule; enforcing binding successor agreements)
Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (arbitrability and contract interpretation standards; de novo review for repudiation determination)
J.W. Peters, Inc. v. Bridge Workers, Local 1, 398 F.3d 967 (7th Cir. 2005) (recognizing single‑employee unit exception in § 8(f) context)