Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 70 v. California Consolidators, Inc.

Good Law
693 F.2d 81·111 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2785·1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 24390
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 2, 198281-4292California1,985 words

Opinion

Opinion

Local 70 wants to represent the employees at California Consolidators, Inc. To that end, on November 17, 1980, it filed a complaint against Consolidators under section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a). It alleged that Consolidators and Marathon Delivery Services constituted a single employer and sought a declaratory judgment that Consolidators was bound by the union’s collective bargaining agreement with Marathon.

Consolidators is a trucking firm engaged in handling, warehousing, and shipping containerized cargo. It was formed in Los Angeles in 1976 and expanded to open a facility in Oakland in 1978. Employees at neither location are represented by Local 70 or any other union.

Marathon is a pool car distributor and conducts local and long distance drayage. It has operated in Oakland for about 20 years and in Los Angeles since about 1975. Local 70 and Marathon have maintained a collective bargaining relationship for many years.

The company filed a motion for summary judgment. It alleged, among other things, that the court lacked jurisdiction because the National Labor Relations Board commands exclusive jurisdiction over the single employer issue.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.