Case Name: LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ALABAMA, on Behalf of LABORERS INTERNATIONAL LOCAL 559, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. McDOWELL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1982-07-06
Citations: 680 F.2d 94
Docket Number: No. 81-7765
Parties: LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ALABAMA, on Behalf of LABORERS INTERNATIONAL LOCAL 559, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. McDOWELL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before GOLDBERG , HILL and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 680
Pages: 94–96

Head Matter:
LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL OF ALABAMA, on Behalf of LABORERS INTERNATIONAL LOCAL 559, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. McDOWELL CONTRACTORS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 81-7765
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
July 6, 1982.
Jerome A. Cooper, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Chris Mitchell, Birmingham, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Before GOLDBERG , HILL and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges.
Honorable Irving L. Goldberg, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In this appeal, we are asked whether a union or its pension fund may enforce the provisions of an area-wide "prehire" labor agreement against a construction contractor building a project within the covered area, when the union has not shown that it represents a majority of those working on the project in question.
In proceedings below, the district court held: (1) that in the absence of a showing of a union majority at a given project, the terms of an area-wide prehire labor agreement would not be enforceable against the employer with respect to that project; and (2) that if the union could not enforce the terms of the prehire agreement, neither could its pension fund. Dissatisfied with the district court's ruling, the plaintiff union and pension fund trustees brought this appeal.
We find that the issues presented herein are controlled by clear precedent. On the basis of the Supreme Court's recent opinion in Kaiser Steel Corporation v. Mullins, et al., -U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 851, 70 L.Ed.2d 833 (1982) and the Fifth Circuit's en banc decision set forth in N. L. R. B. v. Haberman Construction Company, 641 F.2d 351 (5th Cir. 1981), the decision of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
. § 8(f) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158© (1976), provides for prehire agreements such as the one here in question.
. In Kaiser Steel Corporation v. Mullins, supra, the Supreme Court held that an employer's obligation to contribute to a union pension fund is unenforceable if the underlying labor-management agreement is itself unenforceable.
. As a decision of the "old" Fifth Circuit, N. L. R. B. v. Haberman, supra serves as binding precedent for this panel unless or until overruled by a decision of the Supreme Court or the Eleventh Circuit sitting en banc. See, Bonner v. City of Prichard, Alabama, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981).