Carpenters' Local Union No. 1478 v. Neal Stevens, Neal Stevens v. Carpenters' Local Union No. 1478 Southern California Conference of Carpenters

Neal Stevens appeals from the district court’s enforcement of an arbitration award for $4706.26 in favor of Carpenters’ Local Union No. 1478 (the union). Stevens contends that the arbitrator’s award is inconsistent with earlier findings made by the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) in an election proceeding. We agree, and because the arbitrator’s award is contrary to applicable principles of labor law, we reverse.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW

This case arises out of the operation of two entities: EOS Enterprises, Inc. (EOS) and Neal Stevens Contracting (NSC), a sole proprietorship. EOS commenced operations in 1975 and is engaged in the concrete construction business. It is wholly owned by Neal Stevens and his wife, Jean Stevens, and employs an average of four to seven carpenters. The union and EOS have never entered into a collective bargaining agreement. NSC also is involved in the construction business. When NSC began operations in 1977 Stevens signed a memorandum agreement with the union on behalf of NSC that incorporated the master labor agreement between the Southern California General Contractors and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners. Apparently…

dissenting.

There is no dispute that this case involves a construction industry prehire agreement under section 8(f) of the NLRA. Prehire contracts authorized by section 8(f) are unique. They may be entered between a union and an employer without the un *1281 ion’s majority status first having been established. Monetary obligations accrued under a prehire agreement prior to repudiation of the agreement by the employer, can be enforced in a section 301 suit even in the absence of proof the union represented a majority of the employees. Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260 , 103 S.Ct. 1753 , 75 L.Ed.2d 830 (1983).

Because the parties did not address the effect of the prehire status of the agreement, my first choice would be to request further briefing. Since the majority does not agree, I shall express my views without the benefit of such briefing.

I believe that an entirely different analysis from that of the majority is required because of the section 8(f) prehire agreement. The monetary obligations involved accrued prior to any attempt to repudiate the prehire agreement. Thus, there was no need for the arbitrator to delve into representational issues such as whether the…

743 F.2d 1271 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2023 , 117 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3095 , 101 Lab.Cas. P 11,139 CARPENTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 1478, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Neal STEVENS, Respondent-Appellant. Neal STEVENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CARPENTERS' LOCAL UNION NO. 1478; Southern California Conference of Carpenters, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 83-6144, 83-6145. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 9, 1984. Decided Aug. 1, 1984. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Oct. 4, 1984. John T. DeCarlo, DeCarlo & Connor, Los Angeles, Cal., for petitioner-appellee. James T. Winkler, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Long Beach, Cal., for respondent-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before SNEED and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON * , District Judge. SNEED, Circuit Judge: 1 Neal Stevens appeals from the district court's enforcement of an arbitration award for $4706.26 in favor of Carpenters' Local Union No. 1478 (the union). Stevens contends that the arbitrator's award is inconsistent with earlier findings made by the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) in an…