Raymond Orrand v. Hunt Construction Grp.
852 F.3d 592
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Defendants (contractors) had CBAs with Operating Engineers (requiring Employers to assign forklifts/skid‑steer work to Operating Engineers and to pay specified fringe contributions) and separate CBAs with Laborers (assigning the same work to Laborers), creating conflicting contract rights.
- Defendants assigned the disputed work to Laborers; Operating Engineers filed pay‑in‑lieu grievances and threatened strikes.
- Defendants petitioned the NLRB under NLRA § 10(k); the NLRB found Laborers entitled to the work and that Operating Engineers’ conduct constituted unfair labor practices.
- While the § 10(k) proceeding was pending, ERISA trustees (Plaintiffs) sued under ERISA § 515 seeking contributions and related relief based on the CBA contribution clause that penalized the employer if it assigned work to non‑Operating Engineers.
- The district court stayed the ERISA suit pending the NLRB decision, then granted summary judgment for defendants after the NLRB issued its jurisdictional award; the Sixth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an NLRB § 10(k) jurisdictional award precludes an ERISA § 515 action seeking CBA‑based contributions | Trustees argue § 515 imposes a contractual obligation to pay contributions regardless of the § 10(k) award; double payment would not automatically defeat ERISA collection | § 10(k) awards conclusively resolve jurisdictional disputes and bar inconsistent relief; allowing contributions would undermine § 10(k) and force employers to choose between conflicting legal obligations | The NLRB § 10(k) award precludes the conflicting § 515 action; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261 (1964) (NLRB § 10(k) authority to resolve jurisdictional disputes may be invoked to avoid conflicting contractual remedies)
- UAW Local 1519 v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 619 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1980) (§ 10(k) determination takes precedence over a contrary arbitrator’s award)
- Local 30, United Slate Workers Ass’n v. NLRB, 1 F.3d 1419 (3d Cir. 1993) (permitting contractual damages that conflict with a § 10(k) award would undermine § 10(k) policy)
- Int’l Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union v. NLRB, 884 F.2d 1407 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (employer cannot be forced to choose between complying with a § 10(k) award and a contradictory contract claim)
- Int’l Longshoremen’s Union, Local 32 v. Pac. Maritime Ass’n, 773 F.2d 1012 (9th Cir. 1985) (contractual recovery for work awarded to another union by § 10(k) would undermine the § 10(k) assignment)
- Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72 (1982) (ERISA § 515 permits employers to raise defenses where contribution obligations are "inconsistent with law")
- M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S. Ct. 926 (2015) (collective‑bargaining agreements — including ERISA plan terms — are interpreted by ordinary contract principles when consistent with federal labor policy)