Opinion ID: 386304
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Subcontracting Clauses

Text: 15 Section 8(e) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(e) 4 , provides in part: 16 (e) It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contract or agreement, express or implied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing business with any other person, and any contract or agreement entered into heretofore or hereafter containing such an agreement shall be to such extent unenforcible (sic) and void: Provided, That nothing in this subsection shall apply to an agreement between a labor organization and an employer in the construction industry .... 17 Maloney contends that Article IV, paragraph 9(C), of the collective bargaining agreement 5 violates section 8(e) of the Act in that the subcontracting provisions have a secondary rather than a primary objective and are not within the construction industry proviso. 18 We have held that the NLRB's primary jurisdiction precludes federal courts from acting as the initial arbiters of unfair labor practice charges in section 301 actions, even where the unfair labor practice is offered as a defense to enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement. Waggoner v. R. McGray, Inc., 607 F.2d at 1231. Other circuits similarly have held that the defense of illegality may not be interposed in actions seeking enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement. See Mullins v. Kaiser Steel Corp., 642 F.2d 1302, 105 L.R.R.M. 2579 (D.C. Cir. 1980); Huge v. Long's Hauling Co., 590 F.2d 457 (3d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 918, 99 S.Ct. 2840, 61 L.Ed.2d 285 (1979). We agree with the District of Columbia Circuit that (i)f an employer were allowed to interpose the section 8(e) defense in any suit to enforce a collective bargaining agreement, there would be nothing left of the Board's primary jurisdiction for section 8(e) cases. 105 L.R.R.M. at 2588. 19 A challenge to the validity of the subcontracting provisions must lie in unfair labor practice proceedings before the NLRB, not in a § 301 action in the district court. Any conflict arising between the NLRB decision and the arbitrator's decision could be resolved at a later date. See Cannery Warehousemen v. Haig Berberian, Inc., 623 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1980). 20 Thus, it was improper for the district court to consider this defense in the proceedings below. However, inasmuch as the district court concluded that a decision that Orange Belt had engaged in unfair labor practices 6 would not have changed the result, it is not necessary for us to remand this matter. Maloney has failed to demonstrate that the arbitrator's award is contrary to the collective bargaining agreement. The district court's order confirming the award is AFFIRMED.