2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-14-2009 

# Intl Union of B rick

l a ye rs and v . B ant a T i le & M arble C o P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4135

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Intl U nion of B r ick

l a ye r s and v . B ant a Ti le & M ar

b le C o " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 673. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/673NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 4135 I N TER N A TI O N A L U N I O N O F BR I CK LA Y ER S A N D A L L I E D C R A FT W O R K E R S, L O C A L 5, A ppel l ee v. B A N T A T IL E & M A R B L E C O . , IN C ., A ppel l ant A p p e a l f ro m th e O rd e r o f

th e U n ited S tate s D istric t C o u rt fort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i v. N o. 07- cv- 01245) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E . Jo n es, II I

A r gued on J ul y15, 2009

____________ B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S , and R O T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

(F il ed : Se p tem b er 1 4 , 2 0 0 9 ) T hom as R . D avi es ( A r gued) H arm on & D avi es 2306 C ol um bi a A venue L anca s t er , PA 17603 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant C har l es W . J ohns t on ( A r gued) 150 C orpor at e C ent erD r i ve Sui t e 203T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on 1 pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. 2 P. O . B ox 98 C amp H i l l , PA 17011 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee

OP I NI ON FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: 

### Banta Til e andMarbleCo m pany , Inc. ( “Banta ”) appeal s from the Dis tric t Court ’s grant of summ ar

y ju dg m ent in f

avor of Inte rnational Unionof

Bric klayer s andAlli ed C raf tw o rk ers, L o cal 5 (“L o cal 5 ”). B anta alleg es th at th e D istrict C o urt erredwh enit h eldth at B anta w as requ iredto arb itrate a g riev an ce f iledb y L o cal 5 ev enth o u g hB anta wa s no l on ge r

aparty t o any a gre e m e nt

wi th L oc a l5. Fo r

ther e a s on s s t at e d b e l ow , we w i l la f f i rm. 1 

### I. Fact s andProceduralHist ory B eca us e w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es , w e onl ydi s cus s the fa ct s and p ro c e e d in g s to th e e x te n t n e c e s s a ry f o r r e s o lu tio n o f

th is c a s e . B a n ta is a til e in sta llatio n c o rp o ra tio n in L a n c a ste r, P e n n sy lv a n ia, w h e re lo c a l ti le w or ker s ar e r epr es ent ed byL ocal 5. B ant a and Local 5 pr evi ous l yhad bee n par t i es t o a su c c e ss io n o f

c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n ts, b u t B a n ta te rm in a ted its c o n tra c t w ith L ocal 5 i n A pr i l 2006. L ocal 5 r emai ned a pa r t yt o a s i m i l arcontr actw i t h other3

e m p lo y e rs in th e a re a . B ant a w as al s o a s i gnat or yt o tw o col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s betw een I nt ernat i onal U ni on of B r i ckl ay er s and A l l i ed C r aftw or ker s , L ocal U ni on N o. 1 ( “Local 1”) , a Phi l adel phi a- ar ea gr oup, and the A s s oci at ed Ti l e C ont r act or s of Phi l adel phi a and Suburbs ( “the A s s oci at i on”) . B ant a w as nota mem berof the A s s oci at i on, buts i gned the a g re e m e n ts a s a n in d e p e n d e n t sig n a to rye m p lo y e r in 1 9 9 7 . B o th o f th e se a g re e m e n ts cont ai ned the fol l ow i ng “me t oo” and “ ever gr een” l anguage : T hi s A gr eements hal l r emai n i n ful l for ce a nd eff ectthr ough A pr i l 30, 1998 and s hal l cont i nue ther eaf t erunl es s ther e has been gi ven notl es s than 90 day s w r i t t en not i ce . . . , byei t herpart yher et o, of the des i r e t o m odi fyand amend t hi s A gr eementt hr ough negot i at i ons . I n t he abs ence of s uch not i ce, the em pl oyerand the uni on agr ee to be bound by the ar ea- w i de negot i at ed c o n tra c ts w i th the [A s s oci at i on] and extendi ng this A gr eem ent f orthe l i f e of the newl y- negot i at ed contr act . ( emphasi s added) . A tno t i m e di d ei t herB ant a orL ocal 1 expr es s a des i r e t o m odi fyor am end t he ag reem ents . I n 2004, t he A s s oci at i on and Local 1 negot i at ed a s ucce s s oragr eement . T he s ucce s s oragr eementcont ai ned a “ t r avel i ng contr act or s ” cl aus e, w hi ch r equi r ed em p loy ers to c o m p lyw ith the term s o f a n yo ther B ri ck lay ers L o ca l U n ion stan d ard agr eementw hen empl oy er s s entuni on m ember s out s i de the Phi l adel phi a ar ea t o w or k. L o ca l 5 is a p artyto o n e stan d ard co ll ec ti v e b arg ainin g ag ree m en t w ith all em p loy ers w ith in its ju risd ictio n . T h is s tan d a rd a g re e m e n t is in e f f e c t f ro m M a y2 0 0 6 u n til A p ril 2 0 1 0 . B a n ta w a s n o t a s ig n a to ryto th e 2 0 0 4 a g re e m e n t.B an ta raised sev era l aff irm ati v e d ef

en ses in the D istri ct C o u rt , b u t th e D istri ct C o u rt 2 corr ect l yfound thatbeca us e B ant a fa i l ed t o m ove t o vaca t e orm odi fythe arbi t r at i on aw ar d w i t hi n t hi r t yday s , t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons per i od had run. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overa di s t r i ctcour t ’ s s um m aryj udgm entrul i ng. T w p. of 3 P iscataw ayv . D u k e E n erg y , 4 8 8 F . 3 d 2 0 3 , 2 0 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). 4 I n M ay2006, L ocal 5 di s cover ed thatB ant a had e m pl oy ees i n t he Lancas t erar ea, b u t w a s n o t in c o m p lia n c e w ith th e te rm s o f th e s ta n d a rd c o lle c tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t. I n A ugus t2006, L ocal 5 fi l ed a gr i evanc e as s ert i ng thatB ant a had vi ol at ed the “tr avel i ng contr act or s ” pr ovi s i on, cont ai ned w i t hi n t he Local 1 agr eement . T he mat t erw as s ubm i t t ed to a rb itratio n , an d th e a rb itrato r ru led in L o c a l 5 ' s f a v o r. L o c a l 5 th e n f

iled a c o m p lain t in t he D i s t r i ctC our t , s eeki ng t o enfor ce the arbi t r at i on aw ar d. B oth L ocal 5 and B ant a fi l ed m o tio n s f

o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T he onl yi s s ue i n t he D i s t r i ctC our t , and on appe al , i s B ant a’ s ar gum entthatthe c a se w a s im p ro p e rlysu b m itt e d to a rb itratio n . S p e c if ica lly , B a n ta a rg u e d th a t L o c a l 5 2 b rou g h t th e c ase b ef

o re the arb itrator b yinv o k ing the term s o f L o ca l 5’s stan d ard col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . B ant a ar gued thati tw as nota s i gnat oryt o t hatcontr act b e c a u s e it te rm in a te d its a g re e m e n t w ith L o c a l 5 in 2 0 0 6 . T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatbeca us e the agr eementbetw een Bant a and Local 1 i nt ended t o confe rbenef i t s on t hi r d par t i es s uch as L ocal 5 ( vi a the “tr avel i ng contr act or s ” cl aus e) , L ocal 5 coul d i nvoke the arbi t r at i on cl aus e. A s a r es ul t , the D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entt o L ocal 5. B ant a appe al s , ar gui ng thatthe D i s t r i ct C our terr ed w hen i thel d t hatt hi s di s put e w as arbi t r abl e. 35

I I . D i s cus s i on

“ [ A ]rb itratio n is a m a tter o f c o n tra c t an d a p a rtyc a n n o t b e re q u ire d to su b m it t o arbi t r at i on anydi s put e w hi ch he ha s notagr eed s o t o s ubm i t . ” U ni t ed St eel w or ker s v. W arrior & G u lf N av igation C o . , 3 6 3 U . S . 5 7 4 , 5 8 2 (19 6 0 ). W h en d eterm ining w h ethe r a di s put e i s arbi t r abl e, a courtm us tanal y ze tw o i s s ues : ( 1) w hetherthe part i es have e nt er ed in to a w ritten a g re e m e n t to a rb itrate , an d (2 ) w h e th e r th e d isp u te in q u e stio n f a lls w ith in t he s cope of

t hatagr eement . N at i onw i de M ut . I ns . C o. v. C os enza , 258 F. 3d 197, 202 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ). W h e n c o n f

ro n tin g q u e stio n s o f

a rb itrab ili ty , a c o u rt sh o u ld “ in d e p e n d e n tly r evi ew t he agr eement ” and “ s houl d notgi ve def er ence t o t he arbi t r at or ’ s deci s i on . . . , but sh o u ld ex erc ise p lena ryrev iew to d eterm ine w h ethe r th e m att er is arb itrab le. ” M cK instry C o . v . S h e e t M e tal W o rk e rs’ In t’l A ss ’n , L o c a l U n io n N o . 1 6 , 8 5 9 F .2 d 1 3 8 2 , 1 3 8 5 (9 th C i r . 1988) ( ci t i ng A T & T , I nc. v. C om m c’ ns W or ker s of A m . , 475 U . S. 643, 649 ( 1986) ) . “H ow ever , w her e one of t he part i es s eeki ng arbi t r at i on i s nota s i gnat oryt o the under l y i ng agr eement , a furt hers t ep i s added t o t he i nqui r y . B efor e the pr es um pt i on of a rb itrab ili tyc a n a p p ly , the n o n -sig n a to ryp a rtym u st s h o w th a t th e sig n a to rie s in ten d e d it t o der i ve bene fi t s fr om t he agr eement . ” I d. at1384. “W her e s uch i nt entcan be s how n, an d w h ere the a rbitrati o n clau se is su sce p ti b le t o the in terpretati o n that the n o n -si g n atory has t he r i ghtt o enfor ce thes e bene fi t s , then arbi t r at i on i s pr oper . ” I d. at1384- 85.

1. “Me Too” C l aus es “M e too ” c laus es o f th e typ e in th e a g ree m en t betw ee n B an ta an d L o ca l 1 are6

com m on and gen eral l yenfo rceabl e. T he N i nth C i rcui thas def i ned “m e t oo ” cl auses as a llo w [ in g ] in d e p e n d e n t, us u a llysm a ller, e m p lo y e rs to o b tain a ll th e b e n e f its of the mast er[col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement ] thati s negot i at ed bythe pr i nci pal empl oy er s i n t he i ndus t r yw i t houthavi ng t o par t i ci pat e i n t he i ndus t r ynegot i at i ons , ort o engage i n s epar at e negot i at i ons , everyfew y ear s . T hus , t he i ndepende ntempl oy eri s as s ur ed that( 1) i tw i l l notbe su b jec t to a c o n tra c t co n tain in g m o re o n e ro u s c o n d iti o n s th a n a re a p p lica b le t o i t s compet i t or s , ( 2) i tw i l l obt ai n w hat everpr ot ect i ons oradvant ages the in d u stryc o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t p ro v id e s o th e r e m p lo y e rs, (3 ) it w i l l be s aved the cos tof expe ns i ve negot i at i ons , and mostpert i nenther e, (4 ) it w ill b e c o v e re d b ya n a g re e m e n t w h e n e v e r th e re st o f th e in d u stryis c o v e re d a n d n o t su b

jec t to a n a g re e m e n t w h e n e v e r th e re st o f th e in d u stryis n o t. A ri z o n a L a b o re rs , T e a m s te rs , a n d C e m e n t M a s o n s L o c a l 3 9 5 v . C o n q u e r C a rt a g e C o ., 7 5 3 F . 2 d 1 5 1 2 , 1 5 1 8 -19 (9th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ). In B erw ind C o rp. v. C o m m ’r of S o c. S ec . , 3 0 7 F . 3 d 2 2 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ), this C o u rt h e ld th a t “a ‘m e to o ’ a g re e m e n t is a n a g re e m e n t w h e re b ya n e m p lo y e r w h o is n o t a m emberof [a t r ade a s s oci at i on] agr ees w i t h a uni on t o be bound bythe t erm s of a [nat i onal w age a gr eement ] . ” I d. at237 n. 18. Fur t her , the C our tnot ed that“a ‘ m e t oo’ agr eementhas t erm s i dent i cal t o t he t erm s of [a nat i onal w age a gr eement ] and ther e i s no di s t i nct i on r egar di ng an empl oy er ’ s contr actual r i ght s and obl i gat i ons . T hus , the di s t i nct i on betw een a . . . s i gnat or y[t o t he nat i onal w age a gr eement ] and a ‘ m e t oo’ s i gnat or yi s w i t houta di ffe r ence . ” I d. ; s ee a l s o Shenango, I nc. v. A pfel , 307 F. 3d 174, 188 n. 9 ( 3d C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng s ame) . T hi s i nt erpr et at i on of “me t oo” cl aus es i s i n l i ne w i t h deci s i ons fr om ot hercour t s of appe al . See, e. g. , N . L . R . B . v. B os t on D i s t . C ounci l of C arpent er s , 80 F. 3d 662, 664 ( 1s tC i r . 1996) ( A “[u] ni on exer ci s es the col l ect i ve7

bar gai ni ng author i t yof i t s cons t i tuentl ocal s i n negot i at i ng a . . . M as t erA gr eement (“ M A ” ) w ith se v e ra l m u lti -e m p lo y e r a ss o c iatio n s. O n c e a M A h a s b e e n n e g o tiate d w ith t hes e . . . as s oci at i ons , t he U ni on cus t om ar i l yoffe r s the s ame M A t o otherar ea em ploy ers , i ncludi ng t ho se w hich nei t her bel on g to a[n] . . . associ at i on no r otherw i se par t i ci pat e i n negot i at i ons . T hes e nonpart i ci pat i ng empl oy er s m aybi nd themsel ves t o t he n eg o ti ated M A sim p lyb yex ec u ti n g w h at are k n o w n as “ m e too ” a cc ep tanc es . . . . ”); D avo n, Inc. v. S halal a, 75 F . 3d 11 14 , 11 17 (7th C i r. 19 96 ) ( i nterpret i ng “m e t oo ” cl ause in th e s a m e m a n n e r) . B an ta arg u es th at th e “ m e too ” p rov isi o n s o f th e c o n tr ac ts i t si g n ed in 1 9 9 7 w ere onl ym eantt o ext end the exi s t i ng t erm s of the 1997 A gr eement s forthe dur at i on of any s ubs equent l ynegot i at ed ar ea w i de contr act . I n otherw or ds , B ant a w oul d have us r ead the p ro v isio n s a s n o th in g m o re th a n “ e v e rg re e n ” c lau se s b yw h ich th e e x istin g c o n tra c t co u ld be r enew ed i ndefi ni t el y . H ow ever , B ant a i gnor es the cruci al “me t oo” l anguage byw hi ch it “ a g re e [ d ] t o b e b o u n d b yth e a re a w id e n e g o tia te d c o n tr a c ts w ith th e ” A s s o c ia tio n . U nderanyfai rr eadi ng of thi s l anguage , B ant a agr eed t o be bound bythe t e r ms of s ubs equentar ea w i de contr act s betw een Local 1 and the A s s oci at i on, notj us tthe dur at i on o f s u c h c o n tr a c ts . H e re , B a n ta is a sm a ller e m p lo y e r w h ich b e n e f itt e d f ro m o b tain in g a ll th e b e n e f its at t endantt o t he mast ercol l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementvi a the “me t oo” cl aus e w i t hout havi ng t o i t s el f enga ge i n col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng. T he “me t oo” cl aus e pr ot ect ed B ant a by8

e n su rin g th a t it s c o n tra c ts w e re in lin e w ith , an d w e re n o t m o re o n e ro u s, th a n its compet i t or s ’ contr act s . A l t hough B ant a s i gned the agr eement s w i t h t he “me t oo” pr ovi s i on, pr es um abl yt o avai l i t s el f of the bene fi t s of the cl aus e, i tnow w ant s t o di s t ance i t s el f fr om t he cl aus e byar gui ng t hati tneveragr eed t o i ncorpor at e the “tr avel i ng c o n tr a c to rs ” c la u s e , d is c u s s e d b e lo w . T he D i s t r i ctC our tw as corr ectw hen i thel d t hat , bys i gni ng the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementt hatcont ai ned the “me t oo” cl aus e w i t h L ocal 1 i n 1997, and neve r m o d if y in g , am e n d in g , o r te rm in a tin g th a t ag re e m e n t, B a n ta a g re e d , u n d e r w id e ly acc ept ed l aw governi ng col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s , t o be bound byanys ucce s s or m as t eragr eementnegot i at ed byt he A s s oci at i on and Local 1. G i ven the unambi guous l anguage i n t he 1997 contr act s , and s ett l ed l aw r ecogni zi ng the enf or cea bi l i t yof “me t oo” c lau se s, w e c a n n o t ac c e p t B a n ta’ s a rg u m e n t th a t itm e a n t to o n lyb e b o u n d in p e rp e tu ity t o t he t erm s of the 1997 col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s as theyexi s t ed atthatt i m e.

2. “Trave l i ng C ontr actors ” C l aus es “Tra vel i ng contr act or s ” cl aus es , s uch as the one c ont ai ned i n t he agr eement betw een the A s s oci at i on and Local 1 i n t hi s cas e, ar e comm on i n t he cons t ruct i on i ndus t r y . See, e. g. , M cK i ns t r y , 859 F. 2d at1389 ( “W e not e thatthe pos i t i on as s ert ed by L ocal 16 i n the und erl y i ng dis pu t e i s not al i en o r new t o co nst ruct i on i nd ust rycon t ract s. C o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g p a ttern s in th e c o n stru c tio n in d u strytyp ica llysh a re th e sa m e o v e ra ll pat t ern as t hatus ed t o arr i ve att he agr eementi n t hi s cas e: a s t andar d form agr eementor9

m a ste r a g re e m e n t is re a c h e d b yb a rg a in in g re p re se n tativ e s a t th e n a tio n a l lev e l, w ith m odi fi cat i ons - t ypi cal l yhavi ng t o do w i t h w age s chedul es - m ade be t w een l ocal uni ons and re g io n a l co n tra c to rs’ a ss o c iatio n s.” ). A lth o u g h th e re is n o c a se law in th is C irc u it t o gu i de the analy si s r egardi ng t he “tr aveli ng con t ract ors” cl ause, there i s pers uasi ve case law f ro m o th e r C irc u its th a t su p p o rts th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n to a llo w L o c a l 5 to arbi t r at e thei rgr i evanc e aga i ns tB ant a. I n M cK i ns t r y , t he N i nt h C i r cui thel d t hata “tr avel i ng contr act or s ” cl aus e, s i m i l ar t o t he one a ti s s ue i n t hi s cas e, “w as cl ear l yi nt ended t o ext end ce r t ai n di r ectand i ndi r ect benef i t s t o w or ker s ot hert han thos e r epr es ent ed by[the l ocal uni on w hi ch w as the sign atory ]. ” Id. at 13 8 6 . A cc o rdin g ly , the N inth C ir cu ith eld th at a sist er, no n -si g n atory uni on, s uch as L ocal 5 i n t hi s cas e, coul d br i ng a gr i evanc e aga i ns tthe empl oy erthathad o p e ra ted o u tsid e th e a re a g o v e rn e d b yth e a g re e m e n t. Id . L ik e w ise , the E ig h th C irc u it held that i den t i cal l ang uag e i n an agreem ent ext end ed b enef i t s t o w orkers otherthan t ho se rep rese n ted b ythe s ign atoryloca l un ion . L o ca l U n ion N o . 3 6 S h ee t M etal W o rke rs’ Int’ l A s s oc. v. A t l as A i rC ondi t i oni ng, 926 F. 2d 770, 772- 73 ( 8th C i r . 1991) . See al s o Fl ynn v. C orp. , 481 F. 3d 824, 830- 31 ( D . C . C i r . 2007) ( hol di ng that , i n l i ghtof the “br oad under s t andi ng” of tr avel i ng contr act or s cl aus es , the cl aus e i n t he contr actati s s ue bound th e d e f e n d a n t co m p a n yto th e c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n t in f o rc e a t a f

o re ig n jo b site ev en tho u g h that co m p an yw as n o t a si g n atoryto the fo reign ag ree m en t) . T he “tr aveli ng con t ract ors” l ang uag e ati ssue i n thi s case i s as fol l ow s:10 W h e n th e e m p lo y e r h a s a n yw o rk o f th e typ e c o v e re d b yth is A gr eementt o be per form ed out s i de of the ar ea c over ed bythe A gr eement and w i t hi n t he ar ea c over ed bya s t andar d C ol l ect i ve B ar gai ni ng A gr eement of anotheraff

i l i at e of the I nt ernat i onal U ni on of B r i ckl ay er s and A l l i ed C r aftw or ker s , t he Em pl oy eragr ees t o abi de bythe ful l t erm s and condi t i ons o f th e sta n d a rd A g re e m e n t in e f f e c t o n th e jo b site a re a w ith re sp e c t to a ll e m p lo y e e s, w h e re v e r h ire d , w h o p e rf o rm su c h w o rk , ex c e p t as p ro v id e d in t he nexts ent ence of the par agr aph. E m p lo y e e s, c o v e re d b yth is A g re e m e n t w h o a re se n t to p rojec ts out s i de of the ar ea c over ed bythi s A gr eements hal l be pai d atl eas tthe es t abl i s hed mi ni m um w age s cal e r equi r ed underthi s A gr eementbuti n no l es s t han the es t abl i s hed mi ni m um w age s cal e of the l ocal A gr eement c o v e rin g th e ter rito ryin w h ich su c h w o rk is b e in g p e rf o rm e d p lu s a ll c o n trib u tio n s s p e c if

ied in th e jo b site lo c a l A g re e m e n t. A s n o ted a b o v e , the re lev a n t in q u iryw h e n d e c id in g if a n o n -sig n a to ryto th is agr eementcan i nvoke the arbi t r at i on cl aus e i s w hetherthe non- s i gnat orypart y , her e Local 5 , ca n sh o w th a t th e sig n a to rie s in ten d e d it t o d e riv e b e n e f its f ro m th e a g re e m e n t. L o c a l 5 has m ett hi s bur den bys how i ng t hatthe agr eementw as cl ear l yi nt ended t o convey benef i t s t o uni ons bes i des t hos e w ho w er e r epr es ent ed bythe uni on w hi ch s i gned the a g re e m e n t. B a n ta’ s m a in a rg u m e n t is th a t w h ile th e “ tra v e lin g c o n tra c to rs” c lau se m a y , in g e n e ra l, be m e a n t to b e n e f it n o n -sig n a to rie s lik e L o c a l 5 , B a n ta itse lf n e v e r in ten d e d to ac q u iesce to tha t cl au se in the A g ree m en t betw ee n the A sso ciati o n an d L o ca l 1, th ere fo re i tcoul d nothave i nt ended t o benef i tnon- s i gnat or i es l i ke Local 5. T hi s ar gum entdoes not gel w i t h t he l aw governi ng “me t oo” and “ ever gr een” cl aus es i n col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng contr act s . B ant a agr eed t o be bound t o t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s negot i at ed11

b yL o c a l 1 a n d th e A ss o c iatio n , in a d d iti o n to f u tu re a m e n d m e n ts o f

th a t A g re e m e n t v ia t he “me t oo” cl aus e, unl es s and unt i l B ant a s ai d otherw i s e. B ant a neve rs ai d otherw i s e, i ncl udi ng aft erL ocal 1 and the A s s oci at i on added the “tr avel i ng contr act or s ” cl aus e i n a s ucce s s oragr eement . T her efor e, B ant a ca nnotnow s aythati tneverm eantforthe “tr avel i ng contr act or s ” cl aus e, l at eradded t o t he A gr eement , t o benef i tot her s . B ys i gni ng and neve ramendi ng t he “me t oo” cl aus e, B ant a i s bound. I I I . C oncl us i on F o r th e f o reg o ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm enti n favorof Local 5.