International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 532 v. Brink Construction Company

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 532 (Union) filed suit in district court under Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) § 301(a), 29 U.S.C. § 185 (a), against Brink Construction Company (Brink) for its alleged failure to comply with the dispute resolution provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the two parties. The district court entered summary judgment for the Union ordering Brink to submit to dispute resolution. On appeal Brink argues that (1) the district court was without jurisdiction to determine the existence of an agreement, (2) a pending action between the parties before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) required the court to stay its proceedings, and (3) the court erroneously found that Brink had not terminated its obligations under the agreement.

I. BACKGROUND

Brink is a South Dakota corporation that does business as an electrical contractor. Brink operates primarily in the Dakotas but occasionally performs work in other states. At the time of filing of this suit Brink had no collective bargaining agreement with any labor organization in the Dakotas.

Brink was awarded a contract for electrical work on a power line…

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from Part IV of the majority’s opinion. While I agree that Brink, because it withdrew WLC’s authority to bargain on its behalf, was not bound by the 1983-85 master agreement, I cannot agree that Brink’s obligations under the 1981-83 master agreement were terminated.

Brink, by its letter of assent, bound itself to the terms of the 1981-83 master agreement. Brink’s letter of December 14,1982, withdrew only WLC’s authority to bargain on Brink’s behalf, it did not repudiate Brink’s obligations under the existing agreement. No one disputes that Brink continued to be bound by the 1981-83 *216 agreement after December 14. Because WLC no longer represented Brink, any action taken by WLC subsequent to December 14 could not affect Brink’s obligations under the 1981-83 agreement. By terminating WLC’s authority to act as its agent without concurrently repudiating the master agreement, Brink became a party to that agreement and was obligated to deal directly with the Union. If it wished to terminate the agreement it was required to follow the termination procedures spelled out in the agreement.

The majority finds that the 1981-83 agreement “terminated…

825 F.2d 207 126 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2252 , 107 Lab.Cas. P 10,112 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 532, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRINK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 85-3926. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted March 6, 1986. Decided August 17, 1987. Emilie Loring and Benjamin Hilley, Great Falls, Mont., for plaintiff-appellee. Kelvin C. Berens, Omaha, Neb., for defendant-appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana. Before FLETCHER, ALARCON and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. WIGGINS, Circuit Judge: 1 The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 532 (Union) filed suit in district court under Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) Sec. 301(a), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 (a), against Brink Construction Company (Brink) for its alleged failure to comply with the dispute resolution provisions of a collective bargaining agreement between the two parties. The district court entered summary judgment for the Union ordering Brink to submit to dispute resolution. On appeal Brink argues that (1) the district court was without jurisdiction to determine the existence of an agreement, (2) a…