Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n Local Union No. 27 v. E.P. Donnelly, Inc.
737 F.3d 879
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Egg Harbor Township funded a public works project with a PLA requiring signatories to be bound; Carpenters and Sheet Metal were involved through Donnelly and Sambe as prime/subcontractors.
- Donnelly, a roofing subcontractor, signed the PLA but later did work for Carpenters (unsignatory to PLA) under Carpenters’ CBA, triggering a jurisdictional dispute.
- Sheet Metal protested the Carpenters’ roofing work; Donnelly and Carpenters threatened picketing, prompting arbitration under Article 10 of the PLA and an Aiges award granting the work to Sheet Metal.
- Donnelly and Sambe challenged the LJAB decision in NJ state and federal forums; the Board issued a Dec 31, 2007 Section 10(k) order awarding the work to Carpenters, conflicting with Sheet Metal’s 301 suit.
- Sheet Metal’s 301 suit sought damages and enforcement of the Aiges award; the Board later held Sheet Metal’s suit violated §8(b)(4)(ii)(D) by continuing the suit after the 10(k) order and required withdrawal of the suit against Donnelly.
- District Court granted Sheet Metal breach of contract damages against Donnelly and Sambe; the Board cross-petitioned for enforcement, and this court reviews Board decisions de novo on law and for substantial evidence on factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board had jurisdiction under §10(k) to resolve the PLA dispute | Sheet Metal argues no agreed-upon voluntary method existed to resolve the dispute, so Board jurisdiction should apply. | Donnelly/Carpenters contend an agreed method existed via the PLA, negating §10(k) jurisdiction. | Board had jurisdiction; no effective voluntary dispute mechanism existed under the PLA for this dispute. |
| Whether Sheet Metal violated §8(b)(4)(ii)(D) by maintaining the §301 suit after the 10(k) award | Sheet Metal seeks damages and enforcement of a PLA/arbitration award, not the disputed work itself. | Maintenance of the 301 suit after the 10(k) order conflicts with the Board’s award and is illegal under §8(b)(4)(ii)(D). | Gundle II controls; maintaining the §301 suit to recover damages against the employer who made the assignment violates §8(b)(4)(ii)(D). |
| Whether Gundle II governs the outcome and whether damages against Donnelly were properly reversed | Sheet Metal urges treating all contract-damage suits the same as in Gundle II. | Board/Sheet Metal argue that Gundle II applies to damages against the assigning employer, not to non-assigning contractors. | Gundle II controls; the Board’s interpretation prohibiting the 301 suit for damages against the assigning employer is reasonable and enforceable. |
| Whether the Aiges arbitration award should have been vacated due to the Board’s 10(k) decision | Aiges award should be enforceable independently of the Board’s later 10(k) ruling. | Carey v. Westinghouse implies Board rulings take precedence; the 10(k) decision nullifies the conflicting arbitration. | The Aiges award must be vacated for conflicting with the Board’s 10(k) decision. |
| Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment on contract liability against Sambe | Sambe breached the PLA by failing to assure Donnelly’s compliance and by allowing the Carpenters’ assignment. | Sambe contends the contract language is ambiguous and material facts exist about Sambe’s role in assuring compliance. | Summary judgment was improper; issues of contract interpretation and material facts survive against Sambe, requiring remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261 (1964) (Board precedence over arbitration rulings; supremacy of Board)
- Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731 (1983) (improper-motivation and illegal-objective exceptions under §8(b)(4)(ii)(D))
- Gundle II, Local 30 v. Gundle Lining Constr. Corp., 1 F.3d 1426 (3d Cir. 1993) (illegal-objective §8(b)(4)(ii)(D) where §10(k) order conflicts with §301 suit)
- Gundle I, Local 30 v. Gundle Lining Constr. Corp., 939 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1990) (injunction standards under §10(l); improper-motivation analysis pre-10(k))
- Gundle III, United Union of Roofers, Local Union No. 30 v. Gundle Lining Constr. Corp., 1 F.3d 1429 (3d Cir. 1993) (confirms Board interpretation of §10(k) precedence over §301 actions)
- Local 1291, Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Local 1291, 368 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1966) (work-rights and compensation framework in jurisdictional disputes)
- Re Recon Refractory & Constr. Inc. v. NLRB, 424 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005) (three-factor test for §10(k) jurisdiction)