Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Ass'n of the United States & Canada v. Jordan Interiors, Inc.
826 F. Supp. 2d 241
D.D.C.2011Background
- OPCMIA and Southwest Regional Council petition to vacate arbitration by Arbitrator Kelly that favored OPCMIA regarding Project No. 7 under the LAUSD Agreement.
- LAUSD Agreement is an 8(f) project stabilization agreement binding signatories and later incorporated Jurisdictional Plan procedures for resolving disputes.
- On June 22, 2009, Jordan Interiors’ employees elected the Southwest Regional Council as their exclusive representative.
- Jordan Interiors executed a letter of assent to the LAUSD Agreement on October 22, 2009, triggering obligations under the Jurisdictional Plan to arbitrate disputes.
- Arbitrator Kelly ordered Jordan Interiors to assign Project No. 7 work to employees represented by OPCMIA/Plasterers Local 200; the other parties did not participate in the hearing.
- District court grants OPCMIA’s summary-judgment motion; denies defendants’ motion; holds that Jordan Interiors’ assent validly bound by LAUSD Agreement and Jurisdictional Plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of the LAUSD Agreement assent | OPCMIA asserts Jordan entered binding assent, preserving arbitration authority. | Carpenters/Southwest contend assent did not preserve, and prior representation voids LAUSD terms. | Assent valid; arbitration authority preserved. |
| Whether certification terminated LAUSD obligations or jurisdictional-dispute framework | Certification does not extinguish jurisdictional dispute resolution under the Jurisdictional Plan. | Certification terminates competing contractual rights under §8(f). | Certification did not terminate arbitration framework; dispute remained jurisdictional. |
| Whether arbitration award is repugnant to NLRA | Award resolves a jurisdictional dispute; not a representational dispute and is consistent with NLRA. | Award interferes with Board certification and employees’ §7 rights. | Award is not repugnant to NLRA; enforceable within Jurisdictional Plan. |
| Enforceability of the arbitration award and remedies | LAUSD Agreement and Jurisdictional Plan support enforcement; Association entitled to fees. | Enforcement would violate NLRA unless properly aligned with representational rights. | Award enforceable; Association entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nova Plumbing v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 330 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (decertification can nullify §8(f) recognitions despite assent)
- Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1964) (Board certification is representational, not jurisdictional)
- Plumbing Contractors Ass’n of Baltimore v. United Ass’n of Journeymen and Apprentices, Local No. 48, 93 NLRB 1081 (NLRB 1951) (Board certification is not a jurisdictional award)
- United States v. Jelinek, 127 NLRB 565 (NLRB 1960) (certification does not compel recognition of representation as a jurisdictional bar)
- Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Serv., 550 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (limits on arbitral scope; enforcement under limited review)