was intended to address “jurisdictional” disputes, which typically involve a conflict
between rival groups of employees where the employer ordinarily stands aloof, with no
particular interest in the outcome. Local 14 v. N.L.R.B., 85 F.3d 646, 652 (D.D.C.
1996). Here, STS has alleged that Local 150 has picketed or threatened to picket more
than thirty jobsites with the intent to force employers to assign work to Local 150. These
allegations are sufficient to state a claim under Section 8(b)(4)(D), in much the same way
STS’s Section 8(b)(4)(B) allegations were sufficient to withstand Local 150's previous
motion to dismiss. (Minute Order of May 28, 2003). Despite Judge Holderman’s ruling
on that motion, Local 150 seems to have gone down the same dead end once more. This
motion, too, must be denied.

It is perhaps telling that, throughout its submissions on this matter, Local 150
decries the lack of evidence to support STS’s allegations. (Local 150's Motion to Dismiss,
at 5 (“There is no evidence on the face of the Complaint or Exhibit A that Local 150 ever
demanded that ECS change the assignment of work . . .”; Local 150's Reply, at 5 (“There

is simply no evidence that Local 150 threaten[sic] to picket STS to change an assignment

(D) forcing or requiring any employer to assign particular work to
employees in a particular labor organization or in a particular trade,
craft, or class rather than to employees in another labor organization
or in another trade, craft, or class, unless such employer is failing to
conform to an order or certification of the Board determining the
bargaining representative for employees performing such work

*



Mc4West site if the STS representative remained there. Local 150 argues that this exhibit
contradicts the allegations in the complaint, and that the complaint must be dismissed.

When considering a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the court must
accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations and draw all reasonable inferences in the
plaintiff's favor. McCullah v. Gadert, 344 F.3d 655, 657 (7" Cir. 2003). All that the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require is a short plain statement showing the plaintiff
is entitled to relief, the purpose of which is to give the defendant notice of the claims and
the grounds upon which they rest. Thompson v. Illinois Dept. of Prof. Regulation, 300
F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir. 2002). All that need be specified is the bare minimum facts
necessary to put the defendant on notice of the claim so he can file answer. Higgs v.
Carver, 286 F.3d 437, 439 (7" Cir. 2002). STS’s first amended complaint easily meets
these requirements.

Section 8(b)(4)(D) of the NLRA makes it unlawful for a union to act to “coerce”
an employer with an object to force the employer to assign work to employees in a

particular labor organization rather than to another group of employees.’ The provision

' More specifically, the section provides that:

It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents--
(4) (i) to engage in, or to induce or encourage any individual . . . to engage in,
a strike or a refusal in the course of his employment to use, manufacture,
process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles,
materials, or commodities or to perform any services; or (ii) to threaten,
coerce, or restrain any person engaged in commerce or in an industry
affecting commerce, where in either case an object thereof is—

3



of work.”). This is a motion to dismiss, however, so Local 150's concerns about evidence
are inappropriate at this point in the proceedings.

Another problem with Local 150's motion is that it focuses almost entirely on
allegations regarding a single jobsite: Mc4West. Clearly, however, STS’s allegations refer
to all jobsite locations. (First Amended Complaint, {§4-5). Local 150's confusion was no
doubt precipitated by the fact that STS alleged that Local 150 threatened to picket that site
(Id., (5) and attached an exhibit that purportedly detailed this threat. The attached exhibit,
however, does nothing of the kind, failing to even mention picketing. That being said, it
does not constitute evidence that Local 150 did not threaten to picket the site, as Local 150
eagerly suggests. As such, it is not the type of contradictory exhibit that “trumps the
allegations” of the complaint. Cf. Thompson, 300 F.3d at 754 (Rule is well-settled that
when a written instrument contradicts the allegations of the complaint, the exhibit trumps
the allegations). It is merely the type of exhibit that does not really support the allegations
of the complaint, but appears to be more along the order of surplusage. In any event, it

lends support to Local 150's arguments for dismissal of STS’s complaint.



‘Minute Order Form (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Sometimes | Edvard A. Bobrick | Sin exon
CASE NUMBER 03 C 2176 DATE 12/5/2003
CASE STS Consultants, Ltd vs. InterNatl Union of Operating, etc.
TITLE

[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented. ]

MOTION:
DOCKET ENTRY;
qd) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Briefin support of motion due
@) ia} Answer brief to motion due____. Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Qa Ruling/Hearingon___setfor__at
6) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___set for___—_at
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__——sset for at_
(7) QO Trial{set for/re-set for]on____at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continuedto___—_at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) Local Rule 41.1 C) FRCP41(a)(1) 0 FRCP41(a)(2).
qo [Other docket entry] Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [31-1] is denied. Enter Memorandum Order.
Curae 4 Boo,
(11) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

No notices required. umber of notices

o | Notices mailed by judge's staff

Notified counsel by telephone, DEC 0..9,.200°

Docketing to mail notices.
1LSi0 SN docketing eohypritnts (
3
15/2008

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtcoom Ze:6 WY Q- Tad eu date ded pote
SRB doputy’s sa
initials

Daddhbddatahta 12

central Clerk's Office ailing deputy infiats

h


Il. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first

amended complaint is DENIED.

ENTERED: ol.
EDWARD A. BOBRICK
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATE: December §, 2003



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

STS CONSULTANTS, LTD.,
Plaintiff,
vs. No. 03 C 2176
Edward A. Bobrick,
Magistrate Judge

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 150,

SP

ag

Lo

a

09 uy

wee eves eee ew

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is the motion of defendant International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 150 (“Local 150”) to dismiss the first amended complaint of plaintiff

STS Consultants, Ltd.(“STS”).

I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff, STS, is an engineering corporation specializing in geotechnical and
construction materials engineering. In its consulting practice, STS independently monitors
the performance of construction contractors on behalf of its clients in order to ensure the
contractors comply with project specifications. STS brings this action against Local 150,
alleging violations of Sections 8(b)(4)(B) and 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations
Act (“NLRA”). 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(4)(B); (D). According to STS’s First Amended

Complaint, the defendant, Local 150, has picketed or threatened to picket more than thirty

ab


job sites where STS is either working or has submitted proposals for work. (First
Amended Complaint, (4). STS claims that, at some of the locations, Local 150 has
picketed entrance gates that only neutral employees use, and has directly appealed to
neutral employees to withhold services at sites where STS was employed. STS also claims
that Local 150 has, on numerous occasions, threatened to picket owners, developers, or
contractors unless STS was removed from the job. (/d., J 5). Finally, STS alleges that
Local 150 agents threatened to picket one jobsite and repudiate a project labor agreement
if disputed work was not assigned to Local 150. (/d.). In all of these activities and at all
locations, according to STS, Local 150's object has been to induce or encourage neutral
employees to withhold their services and to encourage the site owner or developer to stop
doing business with STS, or to force employers to assign work to Local 150. (/d., 5).

Local 150 moves to dismiss the Section 8(b)(4)(D) portion of plaintiff’s complaint.
According to Local 150, “STS has alleged that Local 150 threatened to repudiate a project
labor agreement against the general contractor.” (Local 150’s Motion to Dismiss, at 4).
Calling this STS’s “only” allegation, Local 150 submits that STS has failed to state a claim
under Section 8(b)(4)(D) as a matter of law. (Jd. at 5). Local 150 also finds fault with an
exhibit STS attached to its complaint, a field note, which does not indicate that Local 150
threatened to picket. (/d.; First Amended Complaint, Ex. A). As the court reads the field

note, it suggests that Local 150 might terminate their project labor agreement at the