The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
:
PIPE FITTERS LOCAL 120, : CASE NO. 21-cv-00253
:
Plaintiff, : OPINION & ORDER
: [Resolving Docs. 9, 18]
v. :
:
QWEST MECHANICAL :
CONTRACTORS, et al. :
:
Defendant. :
JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
With this decision, this Court decides whether an employer states plausible
counterclaims against a union suing for breach of a collective bargaining agreement.
In this case, Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120 (“Local 120”) alleges that Defendants
breached a collective bargaining agreement by using non-bargaining unit members to
perform bargaining unit work.1 Plaintiff Local 120 argues that it obtained an award after a
grievance hearing. In this action, Plaintiff asks this Court to enforce the award. Plaintiff sues
Defendants Qwest Mechanical Contractors, Inc. and Qwest Mechanical Corp. (“Qwest
Mechanical Defendants”), alleging that they are joint employers and/or alter egos.2
Qwest Mechanical Defendants deny that the collective bargaining agreement applied
at the time of the grievance hearing.3 Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors admits that
it earlier had a collective bargaining relationship with Plaintiff Local 120 but argues that it
lawfully withdrew from that relationship.4
1 Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 21, 33.
2 at ¶¶ 7-14, 39.
3 Doc. 13 at ¶ 1.
Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors brought two counterclaims against Plaintiff
Local 120.5 Plaintiff Local 120 now moves to dismiss both counterclaims, saying they fail to
state a claim.6 Count One seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendant lawfully withdrew
from the collective bargaining relationship and lawfully ended its affiliation with a non-party
entity. Count Two alleges that Plaintiff Local 120 breached the collective bargaining
agreement.
To decide this motion to dismiss, the Court considers whether it has jurisdiction to
decide whether Defendant could unilaterally withdraw from the collective bargaining
relationship. Specifically, the Court must decide whether this claim is primarily
representational, reserving it to the National Labor Relations Board’s exclusive jurisdiction.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Local 120’s motion to dismiss.
I. Background
Plaintiff Local 120 sued Qwest Mechanical Defendants for breaching a collective
bargaining agreement.7 Local 120 entered into the agreement with a predecessor employer.8
Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors later signed a memorandum of understanding
with Local 120 extending the predecessor agreement.9
In this case, the parties dispute whether the collective bargaining agreement continues
to control Qwest Mechanical Defendants’ relationship with Plaintiff Local 120. In
considering Plaintiff Local 120’s motion to dismiss Qwest Defendants’ counterclaims, the
Court assumes the truth of Qwest Mechanical Defendants’ allegations.10
5 at 14-17.
6 Doc. 9; Doc. 18
7 Doc. 1.
8 Doc. 1-1 (Predecessor Agreement).
9 Doc. 1-2 (Memorandum of Agreement).
Before this lawsuit, Local 120 submitted a grievance under the collective bargaining
agreement grievance procedure.11 A Joint Conference Committee, comprised of employer
and union representatives, conducted a grievance hearing. Plaintiff Local 120 claims that
the Joint Committee issued an award in Local 120’s favor.12 Defendant Qwest Mechanical
Contractors responds that the Joint Committee lacked a quorum and that the committee
improperly blocked Defendant from appearing with counsel.13
After the Joint Conference Committee hearing, Local 120 brought this federal court
lawsuit to enforce the award.14 Local 120 alleged that Qwest Mechanical Defendants
violated the collective bargaining agreement. Plaintiff Local 120 says this Court has
jurisdiction to enforce the collective bargaining agreement under Labor Management
Relations Act Section 301, 29 U.S.C. § 185.
Answering the complaint, Qwest Defendants deny that the collective bargaining
agreement bound them at the time of the Joint Conference Committee grievance hearing.15
One Defendant, Quest Mechanical Contractors, Inc., admitted that it entered a
memorandum of understanding with Local 120 binding it to the predecessor collective
bargaining agreement.16 Quest Mechanical Contractors, Inc. denied that it was bound,
however, to the currently operating version of that collective bargaining agreement.17 The
other Defendant, Quest Mechanical Corp., denied that that it was bound by either
agreement.18
11 Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 24-30; Doc. 13 at ¶¶ 25-26; Doc. 1-1 at Art. XIV (Predecessor Agreement); Doc. 1-3 at Art. XIV
(Current Agreement).
12 Doc. 1 at ¶¶ 30-32; Doc. 1-5.
13 Doc. 13 at 16, ¶¶ 25-26.
14 Doc. 1.
15 Doc. 13 at ¶ 1.
16 at ¶ 20.
17 at ¶¶ 21-22.
Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors brought two counterclaims against Local
120. Now, Local 120 seeks dismissal of both counterclaims for failure to state a claim.19
In Count One of the counterclaims, Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors seeks
a declaratory judgment. Defendant asks the Court to declare that Defendant “legally and
properly ended its former collective bargaining relationship” with Local 120 on February 13,
2020, the day before the Joint Committee Hearing.20 Defendant also seeks a declaration that
it “legally and properly ended its authorization and affiliation” with the Mechanical
Contractors’ Association, the original party that signed the predecessor agreement.21
In support of the declaratory judgment claim, Qwest Mechanical Contractors argues
that at the time the company withdrew its recognition of the union, the collective bargaining
unit had only one employee.22 Defendant argues that unilaterally withdrawing recognition
is proper under Sixth Circuit precedent.23
In Count Two, Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors alleges breach of contract.
Defendant argues that Local 120 breached the collective bargaining agreement by refusing
to allow Defendant’s legal counsel to attend the February 2020 grievance hearing.24 As part
of this breach claim, Defendant also argues that the Joint Conference Committee did not
have a quorum for the hearing.25
II. Legal Standard
Plaintiff moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
19 Doc. 9; Doc. 18
20 Doc. 13 at 15, ¶ 19
21
22 at 13, ¶ 12; Doc. 16 at 6-7.
23 Doc. 16 at 6-7.
24 Doc. 13 at 16, ¶ 25.
granted .26 When ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, the court considers the facts in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party—here, Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors.27 To
survive a motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”28 Defendant’s alleged facts must
plausibly support the legal claim.
III. Discussion
A. Count One: Declaratory Judgment
Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors seeks a declaratory judgment that it
lawfully withdrew recognition from Local 120.29 Granting the requested relief is beyond this
Court’s jurisdiction.
“There is a strong policy in favor of using the procedures vested in the [National Labor
Relations] Board for representational determinations in order to promote industrial peace.”30
In the Sixth Circuit, a dispute falls within exclusive National Labor Relations Board
jurisdiction if it is “primarily representational.”31 Primarily representational claims are
subject to preemption, a doctrine reserving National Labor Relations Act § 7 and
§ 8 claims “to the exclusive competence” of the National Labor Relations Board.32
Federal courts may decide “matters primarily of contract interpretation” that
“potentially implicate representational issues.”33 Courts may not, however, make “end runs
26 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(b)(6).
27 , 683 F.3d 239, 246 (6th Cir. 2012).
28 . at 247 (quoting 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
29 Doc. 6 at 15, ¶ 19.
30
, 870 F.2d 1085,1089 (6th Cir. 1989)(quoting
, 845 F.2d 1250, 1252 (4th Cir.1988)).
31 , 461 F.3d 690, 695 (6th Cir. 2006).
32 , 359 U.S. 236, 245 (1959).; ,
461 F.3d at 693.
33 , 461 F.3d at 695 (quoting 300 F.3d 667, 672
around Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act under the guise of contract
interpretation.”34
Here, Defendant asks the Court to declare that it lawfully ended its collective
bargaining relationship with Local 120. This requested relief ventures far beyond the Court’s
Section 301 contract interpretation role. Defendant does not anchor its claim in any
provision of the collective bargaining agreement. Defendant’s claim only concerns § 7 and
§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act. While the Court may decide collateral
representational issues while interpreting a collective bargaining agreement, Defendant’s
requested relief concerns primarily representational issues.
The Sixth Circuit decision in
820 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2016), does not apply to this case.
concerned pre-hire agreements under § 8(f) of the National Labor Relations
Act. In that case, the Sixth Circuit held that employers may unilaterally repudiate their § 8(f)
agreement obligations “if an employer employs one or fewer unit employees on a permanent
basis.”35
The Sixth Circuit decision explicitly reasoned based on the special
nature of § 8(f) pre-hire agreements. Rightly so. As the Sixth Circuit explained, § 8(f)
agreements “by their very nature, are tentative and anticipatory.”36 § 8(f) “was enacted to
address a very narrow and specific problem”: the need for construction industry contractors
34
, 795 F. Supp. 2d 596, 603 (E.D. Ky. 2011) (quoting
, 227 F.3d 1150, 1157 (9th Cir. 2000)).
35 , 820 F.3d 827, 830 (6th Cir. 2016)
(quoting 290 NLRB 575, 577 (1988)).
to crea te conditional pre-hire agreements.37 The Sixth Circuit characterized the single-
employee rule it applied in as “a narrow rule” applying only to § 8(f)
agreements.38
This case concerns a § 9(a) agreement, not a tentative and conditional § 8(f)
agreement. The collective bargaining agreement states that Local 120 requested and
demonstrated majority status, and that the employer “recognizes the Union as the sole and
exclusive bargaining representative, pursuant to Section 9A of the National Labor Relations
Act.”39 This language “conclusively notifies the parties that a 9(a) relationship is intended.”40
Because this case concerns a § 9(a) collective bargaining relationship, the Sixth
Circuit’s § 8(f) rule does not apply. does not support
Defendant’s requested declaratory judgment.
While Defendant’s declaratory judgment claim is beyond this Court’s jurisdiction,
Defendant is free to raise its contract validity arguments as defenses against Plaintiff’s claims.
The Supreme Court has explained that “if, in the course of deciding whether a plaintiff is
entitled to relief for the defendant's alleged violation of a contract, the defendant interposes
the affirmative defense that the contract was invalid, the court may, consistent with § 301(a),
adjudicate that defense.”41 A party can also seek a declaratory judgment that an agreement
is invalid.42 This authority does not extend far enough, however, for the Court to declare
37
38 at 830.
39 Doc. 1-1 at Art. II, § 1 (Predecessor Agreement); Doc. 1-3 at Art. II, § 1 (Current Agreement).
40 , 349 NLRB 1306, 1308 (2007) (quotation marks and citations omitted);
, 335 NLRB 717, 717, 719-20 (2001) (“We hold that a written agreement will establish a 9(a) relationship if
its language unequivocally indicates that the union requested recognition as majority representative, the employer
recognized the union as majority representative, and the employer's recognition was based on the union's having shown,
or having offered to show, an evidentiary basis of its majority support.”).
41
, 523 U.S. 653, 658 (1998).
that De fendant’s unilateral withdrawal from the collective bargaining relationship was
lawful.
B. Count Two: Breach of Contract
In Count Two, Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors alleges breach of contract.
In support of this claim, Defendant argues that Plaintiff Local 120 breached the collective
bargaining agreement by not allowing Defendant’s legal counsel to appear at the grievance
hearing.43 Defendant also alleges that the Joint Conference Committee lacked a quorum to
decide the grievance.44
The alleged facts do not state a plausible claim for relief. Defendant alleges that it
withdrew from the collective agreement on February 13, 2020.45 The grievance hearing
occurred a day later, on February 14, 2020.46 Defendant does not present its breach claim
as an alternative to its contract withdrawal claim, but instead “restates and reavers” the
allegation that it had lawfully withdrawn from the contract prior to the hearing.47
Defendant can raise its allegations of deficient grievance procedures as defenses to
Plaintiff’s claim for enforcement of the Joint Conference Committee award. The allegations
do not, however, state a claim for breach of contract.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff Local 120’s motion to
dismiss Defendant Qwest Mechanical Contractors’ counterclaims.
43 Doc. 13 at 16, ¶ 25.
44 at 16, ¶ 26.
45 at ¶ 1.
46 at 15, ¶ 22.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 10, 2021
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE