The H onorable Richard Mills, U nited States District Judge for the Ce ntral * D istri ct of I lli noi s, sittin g by

de sig na tio n. NOT RE COM MEN DED FO R F ULL -TEX T P UBL ICA TION

F ile N am e: 07a 0375 n. 06 F ile d: Ju ne 5, 200 7 N o. 06- 1023 UN ITED STA TES C OUR T OF AP PE ALS F OR TH E S IX TH C IR C U IT
DOBSO N INDUSTRI AL, INC., ) ) ON AP PE AL FR OM T HE P lai nti ff- A ppe lla nt , ) U NITE D S TAT ES D ISTRICT

) COURT FOR THE EASTE RN ) DIST RICT O F MICHI GAN v. ) ) IRON WOR KER S LOC AL UN ION ) OP INION No. 25, INT ERN ATION AL ) ASSOCI ATI ON OF BRI DGE, ) STR UC TUR

AL, ORNA MEN TAL AN D ) REIN FOR CIN G IRON WOR KER S, ) AF L-C IO, ) ) De fendan t-A

ppellee
. )
BE FO RE : BOG GS , C hief Judge; DAU GH TR EY , C ircuit Judg e; and MIL LS , District Judg e. * RICHAR D MILLS, Dis tri ctJu dg e. Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant D obso n I ndus tr ia l, I nc . f ile d ac om

pla int in ana tte m

pt t o
en j o i n ag r i e v a n c e f

i l e db y D e f e n d a n t - Ap p e l l e e I r o n W o rk e r s L o c a l U n i o n N o . 2 5.D obso n st at es that f oll ow ing the de ath of

N orm anV lk o n O ct obe r 8, 200 5, 1 hi s s ha res pa ss edto hi s s on , Chr is to ph er Vl k. -2
- In granting the D efendant’ s m otion for sum m ary j udgm ent, the district court held that t h e g ri ev an ce wa s s ub s t an t i v el y arb i t ra b l e a n dt h at t h e J o i n tGr i ev an ce Bo ar d ’s decision was not preem

pted by the Na tional Labor Rela tions Ac t. F indin g no error, we affi rm . I. BACK GROUND Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant D obso n I ndus tr ia l, I nc . a nd D ef en dant- Appe lle e Ir on W orkers L ocal Union No. 25 (“ Loca l 25” or “ the Union”) ar e parties to a S tructural A gr ee m en t w hic h go ve rn s th e er ec tio n and i nst al la tio n of str uc tur al steel . T he Agr eem en t i s be tw ee n th e U nio n and “ the A sso ci at ed G en er al Co ntr ac tor s of Am erica , G reate r Det roit Chapter, Inc. , the G reat L akes Fabricators and Ere ctors Ass oc ia ti on , and th e Mi ch ig an Co nv ey orMan uf act ur ers Ass oc ia ti on , Inc ., (A sso ci at ion ), r ep re se nti ng its m em be rs (E m plo y er or E m plo y er s)
. ” D obso n w as a
m em be r of the G re at L ak es Fa br ic at or s and E re ct or s A sso ci at ion
. A t the ti m e of the gr ie va nc es , D obso n ha d th re e ow ne rs : the tr ust of Ja m es Dobs on, a nd i ndi vid ua ls Norm an Vlk and D ale Ba sh. D obso n’ s busi ness consis ts of steel fabrica tion, steel 1
er ec tio n se rv ic es , r igg ing se rv ic es , doo r se rv ic es a nd s tor ag e se rv ic es . I n th e co ur se of its busi ness, D obso n regularly em ploy s about twelve m em

bers of L ocal 25 on an-3
-

ho ur ly bas is
. A c oll ec tiv e ba rg ai ning a gr ee m en t ( “ CB A ”) e xis ts b etw ee n D obso n and the U nio n, w h i c h p r o v i d e s f

o r a j o i n t g r i e v a n c e b o a r d ( “ J G B ” ) “ t o h e a r a n d d e c i de a ll gr ie va nc es r eg ar din g th e int er pr et at ionof

thi s A gr ee m en t or co nd itions of
em plo ym en t e xis tin g betw ee n th e A sso ci at ion( inc lud ing a ny E m plo y er m em be rs of th e Ass oc ia ti on ) oran y ot he r em pl oyer si gn at or y to th is Agr eem en t andth e Uni on .” The C BA wa s am ended, ef fective June 1, 2004, to include Article 30 (E ), which pr ovi de s, “ A sig na tor

y E m plo y er m ay not a voi d a ppl ic at ionof

thi s A gr ee m en t by doub le breasting or sim ilar device. ” In O ct o b e r

2 0 0 4 , D o b s o n s ub m i t t e dab i dt o t h e N a t i o n a l G y p s u m C o m pa ny f o r ap r o j e c tt h a t r e qu i r e dt h e r e mo v a l a n di n s t a l l a t i o n o f adu s tc o l l e c t o r

s ys t e m. L at er that m onth, L oc al 25 l earn ed that anothe r co m

pa ny , I MM , I nc . , w as ins ta lli ng the dus t c oll ec tio n sy ste m a t the N at ion al G y

psum Pr oj ec t. A cc or din g to the U nio n, this job invo lved work w hich was covere d by the Structural Agreem ent. The I MM
em pl oyees o n t he Nati on al Gy ps um Pro ject wer e n ot m em

be rs of Lo cal 25
. On N ovem

ber 4, 200 4 , Local 25 filed two identical grievances alleging that

“ D obso n . . . is ope ratin g a non-unio n alt er eg o nam ed IM M, In c. an d us ing I MM to pe rf orm barg ai nin g un it w ork a t the N at ion al Ci ty G y psum fac ili ty

in vio la tio n of virtual ly ev ery

pr ovi sio n of

the c oll ec tiv e ba rg ai nin g a gr ee m en t. ” T he U nio n-4
-

requested the following r elief: “ [a] ll lost wages and benefits because of the contract violatio n at the Na tional City Gy psum fac ility , c ease opera tion of t he non-un ion alter eg o, I MM ; r ep ay

m en t of tar ge tin g m one y re ce ive d by D obso n . . . a nd s uspe nsi on o f all target m onies pendin gs [sic] .” The Union notes that the grievance di d not seek
an accr etion of IMM em ploy ees into the Local 25-re presented bargain i n g u nit at D obso n, that I MM be bou nd t o the Stru ct ur al A gr ee m en t or tha t IM M b e he ld l ia ble fo r D obso n’ s c ontra ct

vio la tio n. A t the ti m e the gr ie va nc es w er e fi le d, the sh areh ol de rs of I MM were th e tru st of Ja m es E. Dobs on , and th e in di vi du al s, Dal e A. Bas h a nd Ch ris to ph er K. Vlk
. O n D ec em

be r 15, 2004 , a heari ng wa s held be fo re the JG B. I n a cc or da nc e w ith A rt ic le 31 o f the St ru ct ur al A gr ee m en t, the JG B c onsi ste d of thr ee U nio n
re pr es en ta tiv es a nd thr ee r ep re se nta tiv es of the A sso ci at ion
. L oc al 25 c la im s th at it presented evidence of com m on ownership between D obso n and IMM; shared
m anagem ent betwee n Dobson and IMM; that w o rk at the G y psum Proj ect w as covered by the Structural Agreem ent and that work on the Gy psum Proj ect involved ap pr ox im at el y

60 0 h ou rs of s tru ctur al iro n wo rk
. T he U nio n c la im s th at

Ch ri s V lk, Pr es ide nt of IM M an d D ir ec tor of O pe ratio ns for Dobso n, stated at t he hearing that he served as President o f IMM without pay ; that Dob s o n an d IMM have j ointl y solicited bid s and provid ed m arketing services; that-5
-

w ork ha s be entr ad ed

ba ck a nd f orth b etw ee n D obso n and IM M in a cc or da nc e w ith which party

is best able to perform

the work; that IMM perform ed s t ru ct u ral w ork
w he n D obso n w as una

ble to sol ic it w ork fr om cu sto m er s re qui rin g low -w ag e
w orke rs ; and tha t Do bsonha s di ve rt ed w ork to I MM dur ing the bid din g pr oc es s. V lk al so c om pla ine d a bout the hig h w ag e an d be ne fi t rate s inthe S tr uc tur al A gr ee m en t. Dobson’s a ttorney

also appeared at the hearing and presented evidence to the JGB. Dobson dis putes so m e of the above a llegations
. It claim s that Chris Vlk w as
co m pe ns at edforhi s s erv ic es a s P r e s i de nt at I MM in th e fo rm of s to ckop ti on s. Mor eo ve r, D obso n and I MM ha ve ne ve r jointl y sol ic ite d bi ds o n stru ct

ur al ir on pr oj ec ts, str

uc tur al w ork ha s no t be entr ad ed ba ck a nd f orth b et ween Dobson and IM M i n a cc or da nc e w ith w hic h party is bes t abl e to per fo rm the w ork, a nd D obso n ha s n ev er d iv ert edwork to IMM du rin g t he bi dd in g p ro ces s. Vlkst at edth atth e two
co m pa nie s r em ai n in de pe nde nt and d ist in ct. D obso n c la im s th ose a re j ust som e of th e err on eo us fact ua l as se rti on s m ad e b y Loca l 2 5. D obso n c ont en ds tha t the U nio n’ s m ost eg re gio us m isr ep re se nta tio n c onc er ns V lk’ s r ole at the JG B h eari ng. A s D obso n’ s D ir ec tor of O pe ratio ns, V lk atte nde d th e JG B h eari ng s ole ly

f or the pur pose of c ont es tin g j ur isd ic tio n. D obso n c onsi ste ntl y
m ai nta ine d th at

“ the sub j ec t and c ir cu m stanc es pr es en ted by the G ri ev an ce a re not
ar bitra ble un de r the c ontra ct ” an d r eque ste d “ tha t the JG B d ec lin e to e xe rc ise a ny-6
-

authorityover the grievance, and leave the parties to explore, if they choose, other alternatives.” A rt i c l e 3 1 ( B ) o f

t h e C B A p r o v i d e s i n p e rt i n e n tp a rt , “ Wi t h i n s e v e n ( 7 ) d a ys af te r t h e g r i e v a n c e h a s b e e n h e a r db y t h e J o i n tB o a r d , t h e B o a r dw i l l i s s u e i ts de ci sio n. ” T he or igi na l c om pla int in thi s c as e w as f

ile d onD ec em

be r 13, 200 4,
w hic h w as tw o day s be fo re the JG B h eari ng. A fi rs t am en de d co m pla int w as f

ile d on D ec em be r 22, 200 4. O n January 13 , 2 00 5 ( 29 d ay s a ft er the he ar ing ), ha vin g
rece ived no respon se or decisi o n fr o m t h e JGB , D obso n filed its second am ended
co m pla int , to re fl ec t the f

ac t tha t the he ar ing ha d be enhe ld and t o c om pla in a bout the tard ine ss o f the JG B d ec isi on. Do bs on al so re que ste d th at the c ourt qu as h any decision of the JGB. On Janu ary 28, 2 005, the JGB issu ed its decision granting Local 25's g rievance f

iled und er the S tructural A greem ent and dism issin g the grievance fi le d un de r the Ri ggi ng A gr ee m en t. S pe ci fi ca lly , the JG B c onclude d th at “ a cl ose busi ne ss r el at ion shi p e xis ts betw ee n R es pond en t D obso n and I MM , I nc . , suf fi ci en t to f ind that an a lte r- eg o si tua tio n e xis ts. ” T he U nio n w as a w ar de d lo st w ag es a nd be ne fit s. Loc al 25 st at es th atdu rin g t hi s l it ig at io n, ea ch of th e fac ts fou nd by the JGB
wa s confirm ed to be true. Moreover, Loca l 2 5's m em bers would have perform ed
m uc h o f t he workon th e Nat io na l Gy ps um Pro ject i f Dob so n h addo ne th e job
.-7
-

O n Fe br ua ry 7, 2005 , L oc al 25 fi le d w ith the dis tr ic t co urt its c ount er cl ai m to
en fo rc e fi na l and bindi ng gri ev an ce de ci sio n. O n Aug ust 26, 2005 , D obso n f ile d it s
m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t and L ocal 25 f ile d am oti on t o e nf

or ce f ina l and bind ing grievance decision. The district court granted Loca l 25's m otion to enforce
an d de nie d D obso n’ s m oti on f or sum m ar y j udgm en t. T his appe al f oll ow ed
. Dobson raises several issues on appeal. It alleges that the district c ourt erre d in h old ing that the de ci sio n of t he JGB w as not pr ee m pte d by the N at ion al L ab or Re la tio ns A ct

( “N L RA ”)
. I t f

urthe r co nte nds that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in de cl ini ng to v ac at e the JG B’ s de ci sio n w hic h di sr eg ar de d th e law on a lte r eg o. D obso n a lso
as se rt s th at

the JG B’ s de ci sio n e xc eede d th at e nti ty ’ s po w er s by

sub stanti al ly af fe ct i n g t h e r i g h t s o f a n i n d ep e n d e n t t h i rd p ar t y. Ital s o cl ai m s t h at t h e J GB ’s d e c i s i o n wa s f

u n d a men t a l l y u n f

a i r i n p a rtb e c au s e i twa s n o t ap p e a l a b l e . F i n a l l y, D obso n a lle ge s tha t the dis tr ic t co urt shou ld ha ve va ca te d the JG B’ s de ci sio n be ca use i twa s u n t i mel y. II. D ISCU SSION Section 301(a) of the L ab or Managem ent Relations Act authorizes district
co urts t o he ar

“ [s ] uit s f or vio la tio n o f co ntra ct s be tw ee n an e m plo y er a nd a la bor organization.” 29 U. S. C. § 185(a). This is an appeal from a final order

of the district
co urt date d N ove m

be r 7, 200 5. W e ha ve j ur isd ic tio n purs ua nt to 28 U
. S. C. § 12 91.-8
-

In ca se s in w hic h the dis tr ic t co urt en fo rc es or re fu se s to va ca te a n arb itr at ion
aw ard, we reviewfindings of fac t onlyfor cle ar error . Questions of law are r eviewe d de n ovo . C l e v e l a n d E l e c . I l l u m i n a t i n g C o . v . U t i l i t y W o rk e r s L o c a l 2 2 7 , 4 4 0 F
. 3d 80 9, 8 12 (6t h C ir. 2 00 6)
. (A) D obso n c ont en ds tha t th e di stri ct c ourt e rr ed

a s am at te r of

law w he n it de cl in edto va cat e th e JGB ’s de ci si on whi ch it ass ert s was pre em pt edby the NLRA, 29 U
. S. C. § 15 1 e t se q. S ec tio n 9( b) of the N L RAauth or iz es the N at ion al L ab or Re la tio ns B oa rd

( “N L RB ”) to d et erm in e “ the uni t a ppr opr ia te f

or the pur pose s of collective bargaining.” 29 U. S. C. § 159 (b). Dobson alleges the JGB’ s decision th at the I MM w as a n a lte r ego of Dob so n, the re by e nti tli ng L oc al 25 m em

be rs to “ los t
wa ges and bene fi t s eq u al t o thos e that w ould have been paid had the work been perform ed by

Dobson at the National City Gy psum Fac ility u n d er the Structural Agre em ent,” rests on an im perm issib le conclusion that IMM’ s em ploy ees ar e an
ex te nsi on o f D obso n and, the re fo re , c ove re d by L oc al 25' s r ep re se nta tio n a gr ee m en t. Dobson asserts that the JGB’ s conclusio n invo lves an accr etion of IMM’ s em ploy ees int o th e re pr es en ta tiv e uni t of the U nio n, a de ci sio n tha t D obso n cl ai m s fa lls w ith in the e xc lus ive pr ovi nc e of the N L RB
. D obso n c ite s Lex in gt on C ar ta ge Co
. v. International Brotherhood of Team sters, 713 F. 2d 19 4 (6th Cir. 1983), for the genera l-9
-

pr opos i t i o n t h a t t h e N L R B h a s e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r a d j u d i c a t i n g qu e s t i o n s of rep res en ta ti on or u nf

ai r la bo r pr act ic es . T he U nio n c la im s th at

L ex ing tonCart ag e Co
. is ina ppos ite
. T ha t

c a s e c onc er

ns
w he the r the N L RB ha s j ur isd ic tio n to de te rm ine if an em plo y er ha s a duty

to ba rg ai n
w ithauni on w he n th er e is an is su e regard ing w he the r the uni on h as the sup port of
a m aj or ity

of the e m plo y ee s. 713 F
. 2d a t 19 5. U nli ke thi s c as e, L ex ing tonCart ag e Co . do es no t i nv ol ve a gr ie va nc e, arb it rab il it y , or d ou bl e-b reas ti ng . D obso n f urthe r co nte nds tha t i ts arg um en t i s su pp orte d by de ci sio ns o f the N L RB
. S ee A sbe sto s C ar tin g Co rp . an d L oc al 813, 302 N L RB 197 ( 1991 ) (“ T he se
s i n g l e e mp l o ye r

/ a l t e r e g o a n d a c c r e t i o n i s s u e s i n v o l v e ap p l i c a t i o n o f s t a tu t o ry p o l i c y, standards, and criter ia and thus are m atters for decisi o n of the Board ra ther than an arbitrator. ”). D obso n claim s the issues h ere shou ld not be decided by an arbitrator. It m ai nta ins that L oc al 25 i m pe rm iss ibl y soug ht a rul ing fr om the JG B tha t I MM is D obso n’ s al te r eg o, a de te rm ina tio n tha t m ust be m ad e by the NLRB. D obso n contends that because the JGB lacked j urisdictio n to decide the issu e, the district
co ur t s ho ul d h av e v acat edit s d eci si on . Loca l 25 asserts this case differs f rom Asbestos Carting Corp. bec ause in that
ca se , the uni on r eque ste d tha t the N L RB re co gni ze it as the ba rg ai nin g r ep re se nta tiv e fo r the e m

plo y er ’ s e m

plo y ee s. 302 N L RB a t 19 7. C onve rs el y in thi s c as e, L oc al 25Inale tte r of sup ple m en ta l auth or ity , D obso n st at es that a se co nd s uit 2 be tw ee n th e pa rt ie s w as f ile d by it f oll ow ing r ec ei pt o f an oth er gr ie va nc e fr om

the U nio n pr em ise d so le ly

on the “ al te r eg o” the or

y . T ha t c as e is b ef

or e Ch ie f Judg e Fr ie dm anin the E as te rnD istri ct of Mi ch igan. U SD C- E D M C as e N o. 05- 7461 0: Dobson Indu strial, I nc. vs. Iron W orkers L ocal Union No. 25, International A sso ci at ionof

Br idg e, S tr

uc tur al , O rn am en ta l and R ei nf or ci ng I ro n W orke rs , AFL-CIO. In it s l et te r of

su pp le m en ta l au th or it y , Dob so n a ls o s ta te s t ha t IM M, In c., 3 ha s fi le d a § 8 (e) C ha rg e an d P os it io n S ta te m en t wi th th e NLRB. Cas e No. 7 -CE61: IMM, I nc., Charging Party vs. Ir on W orkers L ocal Union No. 25, International A sso ci at ionof

Br idg e, S tr

uc tur al , O rn am en ta l and R ei nf or ci ng I ro n W orke rs , Res po nd en t Un io n. -1 0- di d n ot de m an d re co gn it io n o f IMM ’s em pl oyees, n ordi d i t re qu e s t t h a t th e JGB decide a r epresentation issu e. L ocal 25 contends , ther efore, th at b ec ause a
re pr es en ta tio n is sue w as not r ai se d by the gr ie va nc e or

the de ci sio n of the JG B i n th is
cas e, NLRA pre em

pt io n i s n ot an is su e in th is cas e. Dobson alleges that the end result of having an arbitrator decide these issues is tha t the re is ne ith er

f ina lity nor a ny gui da nc e to the pa rt ie s as to howto be ha ve in the future. Dobson speculates that until the issue is sub m itted to th e N LRB for a final de te rm ina tio n, the U nio n w ill c ont inu e to f ile gr ie va nc es e ac h ti m e IM M s uc ce ssf ull y bids a project. A ccording to Dobson , the r esult is that Loca l 25 will have the power

2 to d ec ide w ha t e nti tie s, li ke I MM , a re r ep re se nted by the part ie s’ CB A
. B ec au se 3
suc h ade ci sio n is w ith in the j ur isd ic tio n of the NLR B, D obso n r eque sts that the de ci si on of t he di st ric t co ur t an d J GB be va cat ed
.-1 1-

Th e U n i o n al l eg es t h er e i s n o s up p o rt fo r D o b s o n ’s cl ai m t h at t h e J GB ’s de ci sio n w as pr ee m

pte d by the N L RAbe ca

use it a cc re te d IMM ’ s em

plo y ee s into the ba rg ai ni ng un it re pr es en te d b y Loca l 2 5 a t Do bs on . The Un io n n ot es th atth e JGB
or d e r e dD o b s o n t o p a y

i tl o s tw a g e s a n db e n e f i t s . T h e d e c i s i o n d i dn o ta c c r e te IMM’ s em

ploy ees into L ocal 25's bargaining u nit at Dobson. T he Union claim s that IMM em ploy ees ar e no t ev en d i scussed in th e JGB ’ s decision. IMM’ s em ploy ees
w er e not r ep re se nte d by

L oc al 25 whe n th e gr ie va nc e w as f ile d and r em ai n no n- uni on t o d a y. L oc al 25 f

urthe r co nte nds tha t eve n if a re pr es en ta tio n issue w as im pli ca te d in thi s c as e, D obson’ s c la im that a ll m at te rs r el at ed

to suc h is sue s are w ith in the
ex cl usi ve j ur isd ic tio n of

the N L RB is inc onsi ste nt w iththe S upr em e Co urt’ s ho ldi ng in Carey v. W estingh ouse E lectric Corp., 375 U .S . 261 (1964). T hat case involved
a dis put e be tw ee n an e m

plo y er a nd tw o unions ove r w he the r ce rt ai n e m plo y ee s inone unio n w e r e do i ng t he w or k of t he e m

pl oy e e s r e pr e se nt e d by a no t he r un i on . Id. a t 262. T he e m

plo y er r ef use d to a rb itr at e on the ba sis that the dis put e inv olv ed a represe ntation m atter f

or the NLR B. Id. at 262-63. T he Court concluded that
w he the r the dis put e inv olv ed w ork a ssi gnm en t or re pr es en ta tio n, the re w as no b ar to the use of the a rb itr at ionpr oc ed

ur e. I d. a t 27 2. Th us, e ve n if thi s c as e did

inv olv e a rep res en ta ti on is su e, th e Uni on cla im s t he re was no NLRA pre em pt io n.-1 2-

D o b s o n f u rt h e r a l l e g e s t h a tt h e r e s u l t o f t h e J G B ’s d e c i s i o n i s t h a te v e ry t i me
em pl oyees o f IMM pe rfo rm a job th atLoca l 2 5 d eem s t o b e co ve red b y th e CBA, L oc al 25 en

joy s the r ew ar ds and e nr ic hm en t a s if I MM ’ s e m

plo y ee s are U nio n
m em be rs , de spi te not

of fe rin g th e pr ote ct ion s and b en ef its of m em be rs hip to the se
sam e em ploy ees fr om

which L ocal 25's benefit is derived. Loca l 25 is awarded w ages
an d be ne fi ts, w hil e the IM M em plo y ee s w ho ac tua lly pe rf orm the w ork do n ot e nj oy pension s and other benefits of unio n m em bership. Dobson conten ds, m oreover, that this serves effec tively to r equire it to pay Loca l 25 for work done by em ploy ees that
ar e not co ve red by

the ir c oll ec tiv e ba rg ai nin g a gr ee m en t and tha t m ay not be
m em be rs of the sa m e ba rg ai nin g un it ev en if the y a re L oc al 25 m em

be rs . D obso n
as se rt s th is v iol at es the N L RAbe ca use the N L RB is au th or iz ed to de te rm ine the se
m at te rs . D obso n a sks thi s Co urt to va ca te the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de ci sio n onthe ba sis of la ckof ju ris di ct io n. W e ag re e w iththe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat the JG B’ s dec isi on wa s no t preem pted by the NL RA. T his case concerns a gr i ev an ce that the U nion filed
w he re in i t so ught

los t w ag es a nd b en ef

its f ro m the sig na tor

y co ntr ac tor fo r br ea chof the part ie s’ Stru ct

ur al A gr ee m en t. A ny de te rm ina tio n a s to the c ontra ct int er pr et at ion would not affect the U nion ’ s status as bargainin g representative for any pa rt i cu lar
em plo y ee s. A s th e dis tr ic t c ourt ob se rv ed , “ T he re w er e no thir d part ie s in vol ve d in-1 3-

be ing able to i nte rp re t this c ontra ct , ” tho ugh ce rt ai n f ac ts a bout I MM w er e re le va nt t o t h e o v er al l i n qu i ry. Th i s ca s e d i d n o ti n v o l v e a d eman dfo r r ec o g n i t i o n o f I M M ’s
em ploy ees, nor did it concern a request that the JGB decide a r epresentation issu e. E ve n if thi s c as e invo lve d a rep re se nta tio n issue , w e w oul d no t ne ce ssari ly be
w ith out j ur isd ic tio n. S ee I nte rn at ion al Bh d. of E le c. W orke rs , L oc al 71 v
. T ra ff te ch , In c. , 461 F
. 3d 6 90, 695 ( 6thCi r. 200 6)
. I n T ra ff te ch , thi s C ourt ob se rv ed : S i n c e C a r e y, t h i s c o u rt h a s d r a w n t h e f o l l o w i n g d i c h o t o my be tw ee n di sput es im

pli ca tin g the ex cl usi ve ini tia l j ur isd ic tio n of the Board .
. . and tho se im

plicating th e con current jurisdiction of t he feder al co urts unde r § 30 1. Whe n adis put e is “pr im ar ily r ep re se nta tio na l” unde r § 7 o r § 8 of

the N at ion al L ab or

Re la tio ns A ct , “ sim

ply r ef er ri ng to the cl ai m as a ‘ br ea ch of co ntr ac t’ [i s] ins uf fi ci en t for the pur

pose s of § 301 feder al courts’ j urisdictio n,” but “ m atter[s] prim arily of contract in te rp ret at io n, wh i[c h] p ot en ti al ly im pl ic at [e] repr es en ta ti on al is su es ,” rem ai n wi th in th e fed eral co ur ts ’ § 3 01 juri sd ic ti on . Id
. a t 69 4- 95 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). T hus, c ontra ct dis put es w hic h to uc h on rep res en ta ti on al is su es m ay be su bjec t t o fe de ral juri sd ic ti on . L ike the dis tr ic t cour

t, w e bel ie ve tha t the JG B’ s dec isi on dre w it s e sse nc e fr om th e c o n t r a c t
. T h e C B A p r o v i d e dt h a tD o b s o n “ m a y n o ta v o i dap p l i c a t i o n o f t his Agre em ent by

doub le breasting or sim ilar device. ” The JGB rea sonablydeterm ined tha t this langua ge f

or ba de usi ng an a lte r eg o. G iv en th at th e Stru ct ur al A gr ee m en t has a b road arbitration clause, the Union’ s grievance against Dobson was ar bitrable. This is particular l y t ru e in light o f the fe deral labor policy that strongl y

favors-1 4-

ar bitratio n. D etro it T y

pogr ap hic al U nio n v. D etro it N ew spa pe r A ge nc y , 283 F
. 3d 779, 786 (6 th Ci r. 2002 ). A cc or din gly , w e co nc lud e the dis tr ic t co ur t co rr ec tly de te rm in edth atth e JGB di d n ot ex ceed it s ju ris di ct io n. (B) D obso n ne xt a lle ge s th at a ssu m ing that th e iss ue of a lte r eg o w as pr ope rl y be fo re the JG B, the JG B’ s de cisi on w as a lso m ad e in m an if es t di sr eg ar d of

thi s
co urt’ s pr ec ed en t ona lte r eg o. A n arb itr at ionde ci si on m ust be se t a sid e w he n th e de ci sio n “ fl [i es ] in the fa ce of c le ar ly e sta bli she d le ga l pr ec ed en t. ” L ync h v. Joh nson , 70 F
. 3d 4 18, 421 ( 6thCi r. 1995 ). “ Whe n f ac ed w ithque sti ons of

law , a n arb itr at ion panel does no t act in m anifest disregard of t h e lawunless (1) the applicable legal pr in c i p l e i s c l e a r l y d e f

i n e d a n d n o t s ub

j e c t t o r e a s o n ab l e d e b a t e ; a n d ( 2 ) the arb it rat or s re fu se d t o h eed th atleg al pri nc ip le .” Id
. T he te st f

or the a lte r eg o do ctri ne is “ w he the r the tw o e nte rp rise s have subs tanti ally

ide nti ca l m an ag em en t, bus ine ss, pur pose , ope ratio n, e qui pm en t,
cu sto m er s, sup er

vis iona nd o w ne rs hip
. ” N at ion al L ab or Re la tio ns B oa rd v. F ull er ton Tr ansfer & Storage Ltd. , Inc. , 910 F. 2d 331, 336 (6th Cir. 1990 ) (c itations om itted). Dobson asserts there are m any factors which dem onstrate the independ ence of I MM fr om D obso n. T he tw o en tit ie s ha ve onl y six co m m on cu sto m er s. A s f

or the ty pe of busin es s , t h e o nly

two ar eas of overlap betw een D obso n and IMM are structural-1 5-

se rv ic es a nd s te el f

ab ri ca tio n se rv ic e, both of wh ic h am ount to l es s th ante n pe rc en t of I MM ’ s bu sin es s. D obso n conte nds, m or eo ve r, that I MM r eg ularl y sub co ntr ac ts to Dob so n a nd ha s u se d Do bs on ’s ser vi ces forele ve n s ep arat e pr ojec ts in th e la st two y ea rs . D o b s o n a l l e g e s t h a tt h e t w o c o m p a n i e s h a v e s e p a r a t e b u s i n e s s l o c a t i o n s,
m anagem ent, labor policies, bidding structu re, custom ers and w ork. More over, I MM
an d D obso n do not share an y co m m on e qui pm en t. B as ed

on the f or eg oin g, D obso n claim s it is im

poss ible to conclud e that IMM is Dobson’s alter ego for anypurpose. Th e U n i o n co n t en d s t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt p ro p er l y fo u n dt h at t h e J GB ’s decision drew its es s en ce from the term s of the Structural A greem ent. “ A doublebreasted, or dual shop , e m ploy er m aintains on e com pany that is a signato ry to a

CBA
w hil e m ai nta ini ng a

se co nd, non- uni on c om

pa ny in the sa m e lin e of

w ork inor de r to utilize non -union labo r. ” Becker Elec tric Co. v. Int’ l Bhd. of E lec. W orkers, Loca l No. 2 12 , 92 7 F .2d 89 5, 8 96 (6t h C ir. 1 99 1)
. L oc al 25 note s th at

D obso n and I MM ha ve c om m on o w ne rs hip , c om

m on
m an ag em en t and c om

m on d ir ec tor s. T he y

a lso ha d ac om

m on of fic er . T he U nio n further a lleges that IMM began i ts operations with two loans from Dobson’ s banker to Dobson and IMM. D obso n also purchased equip m ent for IMM
. Dobson has an iron w orker divis ion that er ects and installs st ructural steel; IM M has a fie ld services de pa rtm en t tha t er ec ts an d ins ta lls str uc tur al ste el
. T he U nio n not es tha t D obso n and-1 6-

IM M o pe rate in the s am e ge ogra phi ca l l oc at iona nd h av e at le as t a f ewc om m on
cu sto m er s. B as ed

on the se f

ac tor s, L oc al 25 co nte nds tha t D obso n op er at es anon uni on c om

pa ny , I MM , to av oid the ap pli ca tio n of the Stru ct ur al A gr ee m en t. D obso n
as se rt s th at

L oc al 25 h as m isc onstru ed a nd/ or m isc ha ra ct er iz ed m an y of the se f ac tor s. A ft er r ev ie w ing the r ec or d, w e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt c or re ct ly
sus ta ine d th e ar

bitrator ’ s de ci sio n. E xa m ini ng w he the r a pa rty to ana rb itr at ion agreem en t wi th a

double -b re as tin g c lause ha s an “ al te r eg o” is a re as ona ble w ay to determ ine whether that party is violating that clause. In other words, th e i n quiry unde rt ak enby

the JG B de m onstrate s tha t it w as “ ar gua bly c onstru ing ” the a gr ee m en t. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y he ld tha t the JG B’ s de ci sio n m ust be sustain ed. Mich. F am ily

Res. , I nc. v. SE IULoca l 517M, 475 F.3d 746, 756 (6th Cir. 20 07 ) (en ba nc ). (C) D obso n c ont en ds the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to va ca te the JG B’ s de ci sio n
w he n it ex ce ed ed

it s po w er s by

sub stanti al ly

a ff ec tin g th e ri ght s of

a n in de pe nde nt third p a rt y . Af

e de r a l c ourtm a y

v a c a t e a n ar

bi t r a t i ona w a r d i f

“ t he a r bi t rators
ex ce ed ed the ir pow er s. ” 9 U
. S. C. § 10(a )( 4)
. T his co urt has obse rv ed , “ So m e ci rc uit s ha ve spe ci fi ca lly

he ld tha t arb itr at or s e xc ee d thei r pow er s w he n th ey de te rm ine r igh ts
an d o bl ig at io ns of i n d i v i d u a ls who are n ot pa rti es to th e arb it rat io n p ro ceed in gs .”-1 7-

NCR Corp. v. Sa c-Co. , Inc., 43 F. 3d 1076 , 108 0 (6th Cir. 1995 ) (c itations om itted). D obso n c la im s th at

in thi s c as e, the JG B e xceed ed its pow er s by sub stanti al ly im pairing the right o f IMM to subcon tract with Dobson. Mo reover, other com panies ha ve e xpr es se d c onc er

n a bou t do ing bus ine ss w ithI MM dur ing thi s on goi ng l ab or dis put e. D obso n cl ai m s tha t be ca use the JG B h as sub stanti al ly im pa ir ed the r igh ts o f an entity that is not a party

to the CBAbetwee n Dobson an d Local 25, the district
co ur t er redin fai li ng to va cat e th e d eci si on . W e conclude the district court correc tly determ ined that the JGB did no t exceed its pow er s by

sub stanti al ly

a ff ec tin g the ri ght s of an ind ep en de nt thi rd pa rty . Whil e the JG B’ s de ci sio n m ay

a ff ec t I MM ’ s a

bil ity to subc ontra ct

w ith Dobs on, A rt ic le 30(E) of the Structural A greem ent prohibi ts Dob s o n from doub le-brea sting
. If D obso n’ s arg um en t w er e ac ce pte d, the n A rt ic le 30( E ) w oul d have li ttl e m eanin g. E nf or ce m en t of

ac ontra ct

ua l r es tricti on o n th e ac tio ns o f one party is not inv al id b ec au s e t h e r es t ri ct i o n s af fe ct t h e p ar t y’ s p ar t i ci p at i o n i n t h e mark etp l ac e. Do b s o n ’s
a g r e e men tt o t h e C B A h e r e d i dn o ta f f e c ta n y rig

hts of IMM; it m erely

prevented D obso n f ro m a gr ee ing to ce rt ain de al in gs w ithI MM
. T he JG B’ s de ci sio n si m ply enforced the w ay

in which D obso n itself had lim ited the free dom of its partial alter eg o. (D)-1 8-

D obso n ne xt c ont en ds tha t the dis trict c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to va ca te the de ci sio n of

the JG B whe n D obso n w as a llo w ed no rig ht to app ea l tha t de ci sio n. Dobson further alleges that it w a s other wise denied fundam ental fairness. T he district court err oneous ly

found that Dobso n could h ave appealed th e JGB’ s decision to an
ar bitratio n pane l. A rt ic le 31( C) of the part ie s’ CB A al low s eithe r pa rty to ap pe al onl y uponade ad loc k de ci sio n of the JG B. T he U nio n cl ai m s tha t the e rr or w as harm le ss.

“ T he c ourt a t e ve ry

sta ge of the pr oc ee din g m

ust dis re ga rd a ny er ro r or de fe ct

in the pr oc ee din g w hic h do es not a ff ec t the sub stanti al r igh ts of the part ie s. ” F ed
. R. Ci v. P. 61 Dobson also a l l eg es that the arbitrators w ere guilt y of m iscondu ct that
am ount ed to a de nia l of funda m en ta l fa ir ne ss as to the pr oc ee din g, in vio la tio n of the Federa l Ar

bitration Act, 9 U. S.C
. § 1 0 (a )(3). D obso n claim s there is no guid ance giv ento m em

be rs of the JG B r eg ar din g h ow t o m ak e a de ci sio n. Mo re ove r, the hearing wa s inform al, no evidence was form ally presented, no witnesses we re sw orn
an d n o re co rdor t ran sc rip t m ai nt ai ne d.

“ A rb itr at or s are not

bou nd b y f orm al ru le s of p ro ce dur e an d e vid en ce , a nd the standard f or j udi ci al r ev ie w of

a rb itr at ionpr oc ee din gs i s m er el y whe th er a pa rty to arbitration has been denied a fundam entally fair hearing.” Na t’ l Post Off ice Mailhandlers v. U .S . P ostal Service, 751 F.2d 834, 841 (6th Cir. 1985 ). Both sides-1 9-

presented evidence and argum ents at the hearing. I f D obso n wanted a m ore form al
or str uc tu red he ar ing pr oc es s, it c oul d have sou ght

to ne got ia te one a s part

of the Stru ct ur al A gr ee m en t. Do b s o n al s o co n t en d s t h at t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt er re d b y fa i l i n g t o v ac at e t h e J GB ’s decision w hich was tainted by partiality when half of the JGB’ s m em bers we re direc t
com petitors of Dobson. Ar

ticle 31(A) of the CBAprovides, “ A J o i nt Grievance Bo ar d w ill be e sta

bli she d c onsi sti ng o f thr ee ( 3) ind ivi dua ls a ppoi nt ed by the A sso ci at iona nd thr ee ( 3) ind ivi dua ls ap poi nte d by the U nio n. ” D obso n no te s th at the interests of both the Association and Union were aligned against its interests in th at b o t h t h e A s s o c i a t i o n a n dU n i o n h a da n i n t e r e s ti n e qu a l i z i n g w a g e s . D o b s o n c l a i ms that because of these com peting i n terests, it did n ot receive unbiased and neutral
co ns id erat io n b y

th e JGB
. T h e U n i o n n o t e s t h a t D o b s o n ’ s a t t o rn e y a d m i t t e d s h e w a s n o t a w ar e of a ny specific evidence of b i as o r p rej udice on the part of JGB m em bers. Moreover, D obso n a gr ee d to a JG B co m pr ise d of thr ee m an ag em en t m em be rs a nd thr ee uni on
m em be rs . It i s t oo lat e to ob

ject t o t ho se ter m s n ow. W e c on c l ud e t hat the di str i c t c ourt ’ s e rr or r e gar di ng t he r i gh t t o app e a l wa s harm less. I t is m entioned alm ost in p assing at the very end of the hearing and does not appe ar to be the ba sis of

the c ourt’ s r

uli ng. D obso n’ s othe r ar gum en ts a bout-2 0-

procedural unfairness and the m ake-up of t he JGB are also un persuasive. T he parties agreed to the term s in the Structural Agreem ent. Dobson cou ld have objected if it had pr ob le m s wi th an y

pro vi si on s. (E) D obso n a lso c ont en ds tha t the dis tr ic t cou rt com m itt ed e rr or by f ai lin g to
va ca te the unt im el y

de ci sio n of the JG B, w hic h D obso n c la im s w as iss ue d a ft er the ti m e p eri od pe rm it te d u nd er t he pa rti es ’ CBA. Arti cl e 3 1( B) p ro vi de s t ha t t he JGB
w ill iss ue ade ci sio n w ith in s ev enday s aft er the gr ie va nc e ha s be enhe ar d. I n th is
ca se , the JG B iss ue d its dec isi on 44 day s af te r the he ar ing
. Ci tin g Jone s v. St
. L oui sSan Fran ci sc o Ry . Co., 7 28 F.2d 25 7 (6 th Cir . 19 84 ), Dob so n a ss ert s t he JGB
ex ce ed ed it s auth or ity

a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in faili ng to va ca te the unt im el y decision. In Jones, the arbitration agreem ent provided that the board would render its deci s i o n wi t hin fifteen day s of the hearing date. 728 F.2d at 264. T he court the re fo re c onsi de re d w he the r the part ie s’ a gr ee m en t st at ed that the a rb itr at or s w oul d los e j ur isd ic tio n if

the y r en de re d ade ci sio n m or e than fif te en da y s af

te r the he ar ing date. Id. at 265. Af

ter deter m ining there w as no such prov ision , the c ourt conclud ed t h a tt h e b o a r dr e t a i n e dj u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e s o l v e t h e d i s p u t e “u n t i l a r e a s o n ab l e t i me the re af te r” the f if te en -d ay pe ri od. I d. T he c ourt he ld tha t be ca use the f ourte en -m onth delay in Jones was unreasona b l e, t h e b oard lost jurisdiction to resolve the dispu te.-2 1-

Id
. Inthi s c as e, D obso n no te s th at in fi lin g it s se co nd am en ded c om pla int on January 13, 200 5–a lm ost

one m onth a ft er the JG B heari ng–i t cle ar ly obj ec te d to the JG B’ s j ur isd ic tio n ba se d onit s fa ilure to iss ue ati m el y de ci sio n. D obso n a lle ge s,
m or eo ve r, that the de lay ed de ci sio n c au se d it

a nd I MM ir

repar ab le inj ur

y to the ir bu si ne ss rep ut at io ns . The U nion alleges that the di s t ri ct court corre ctly held that the seven-day pr ovi sio n is not

am an da tor

y te rm w hi ch ex tingui she d th e JG B’ s j ur isd ic tio n. Mor eo ve r, L oc al 25 cl ai m s th e co urt pr ope rl y de te rm ine d th at

ade ci sio n is sue d 44 da y s af te r th e h eari ng di d n ot co ns ti tu te un reas on ab le de la y . Inthi s c as e, the CB A doe s no t pr ovi de that the JG B w ill los e j ur isd ic tio n by fa ili ng t o is sue a de ci sio n w ith in se ve n da y s of the he ar ing
. W e fi nd tha t a de ci sio n
ren de red 37 da y s the re af te r w as re as ona

ble
. A lth ough D obso n al le ge s in a
co nc lus or y f as hio n th at

the de lay c au se d ir re pa ra ble inj ur y to its bus ine ss r ep uta tio n, Dobson has not shown that it wa s prej udiced by the late decision. W e conclude that be ca use the JG B’ s de ci sio n w as iss ue d w ith in a r ea sona ble ti m e af

te r the he ar ing , the JGB di d n ot ex ceed it s au th or it y un de r th e CBA. Fo r the re as ons se t abou t abov e, w e af fi rm the j udgm en t of

the dis tr ic t c ourt.