National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 251
691 F.3d 49
1st Cir.2012Background
- Lynch is a Rhode Island highway contractor bound by CIRI's CBA with Local 251; Local 251 represents Lynch drivers and has sought to preserve bargaining unit work.
- The May 1999 agreement between Local 251 and Lynch identified two subcontractors, Northeast and Cullion, and barred Lynch from using them if they did not pay the prevailing rate.
- Lynch later continued using Northeast despite the agreement; Local 251 members went on strike in April 2001 to enforce the agreement.
- ALJ found the May 1999 agreement violated §8(e) as to Cullion but not Northeast, deeming it a primary work-preservation effort for Northeast.
- The NLRB reversed on the Northeast issue, finding the May 1999 agreement violated §8(e) on its face, and held Local 251 violated §8(b)(4) by enforcing it in 2001 strike; the Board ordered remedial actions.
- The First Circuit reverses as to Northeast, enforces remaining parts for Cullion, and discusses timing and waiver considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether May 1999 agreement violated §8(e) as to Northeast | NLRB focused on text identifying Northeast; record shows work preservation. | Board correctly treated text as unlawful secondary pressure. | Reversed: no substantial evidence the text of the 1999 agreement violated §8(e) as to Northeast. |
| Whether surrounding circumstances show primary purpose of the agreement | Evidence shows intent to preserve Local 251 jobs at Lynch. | Agreement aimed at restraining subcontracting by third parties. | Affirmed: circumstances show preservation purpose; Board erred by ignoring surrounding evidence. |
| Whether Board's enforcement should extend to Cullion and deny enforcement for Northeast | There is evidence of preservation of bargaining unit work for Northeast. | The Board's interpretation of the text governs; enforcement for Northeast appropriate. | Enforcement granted for Cullion prohibition; denied for Northeast. |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, 447 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1980) (defines primary vs. secondary objective test for §8(e))
- Nat'l Woodwork Mfrs. Ass'n v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1967) (identifies factors for work preservation analysis; surrounding circumstances matter)
- Longshoremen, 447 U.S. 504 (U.S. 1980) (two-part test for work preservation; objective and employer power to assign work)
- Hotel and Rest. Emps. and Bartenders' Union, Local 531, 623 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1980) (distinguishes union standards vs. signatory clauses)
- Va. Sprinkler Co., Inc. v. Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, 868 F.2d 116 (4th Cir. 1989) (illustrates permissibility of union standards clauses; signatory clauses improper)