Opinion ID: 3019246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The following facts are generally undisputed. Local 257, a labor union for electrical workers, has members throughout central Missouri and engages in collective bargaining with employers who hire electrical workers. St. Louis-NECA is a multiemployer association which negotiates collective bargaining agreements on behalf of electrical contractors. Defendants are small owner-operated electrical companies with few or no employees. During the years 1989 through 1991, defendants each executed a letter of assent setting forth an agreement between the signatory electrical company and Local 257 in which the electrical company expressly authorized St. Louis-NECA to represent the company for all matters contained in or pertaining to the current and any subsequent approved collective bargaining agreement between St. Louis-NECA and Local 257 covering residential electrical work; during the same period of time, three of the four defendants executed a similar letter of assent authorizing St. LouisNECA to be their collective bargaining representative with respect to any labor -4- agreement covering inside work.2 See Brief for Appellee Local 257, Addendum at 1-7 (letters of assent signed by defendants). While the letters of assent were in effect, St. Louis-NECA entered into residential and inside collective bargaining agreements with Local 257 for the period of March 1, 1992, through February 28, 1994. Article 1, as identically set forth in each of the two collective bargaining agreements, contained the following interest arbitration clause3: Unresolved issues in negotiations that remain on the 20th of the month preceding the next regular meeting of the Council on Industrial Relations, may be submitted jointly or unilaterally by the parties to this Agreement to the [CIR] for adjudication prior to the anniversary date of the Agreement. Slip op. at 4 (quoting collective bargaining agreements). The CIR is a joint industry and union arbitration panel. The letters of assent signed by defendants contained the following provision concerning termination of the collective bargaining authorization granted to St. LouisNECA: It [the authorization] shall remain in effect until terminated by the undersigned employer giving written notice to [St. Louis-NECA] and to [Local 257] at least one 2 Inside work includes work on commercial and industrial properties and residential buildings larger than twenty-four units. 3 An interest arbitration clause is one in which the parties agree to arbitrate disputes over the terms of a new collective bargaining agreement in the event of a deadlock. Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n, Local 14 v. Aldrich Air Conditioning, Inc., 717 F.2d 456, 456 (8th Cir. 1983) (Aldrich Air Conditioning). -5- hundred fifty (150) days prior to the then current anniversary date of the applicable approved labor agreement. By September 21 or 22, 1993, each of the defendant electrical companies had notified St. Louis-NECA of its intent to terminate its respective letter or letters of assent authorizing St. Louis-NECA to bargain on the company's behalf4; by September 22, 1993, each defendant had sent Local 257 notice to terminate its respective collective bargaining agreement or agreements. On November 23, 1993, Local 257 notified each defendant that it intended to negotiate successor collective bargaining agreements. Defendants refused to negotiate successor bargaining agreements with Local 257. On January 5, 1994, Local 257 notified each defendant that it planned to submit the issue concerning successor collective bargaining agreements to the CIR, pursuant to the interest arbitration clause in the 1992-1994 agreements. Thereafter, Local 257 submitted the matter to arbitration, and, on February 16, 1994, the CIR issued arbitration awards which, in essence, directed the parties to sign and immediately implement successor collective bargaining agreements for the period of March 1, 1994, to February 29, 1996.5 In the meantime, on January 14, 1994, Local 257 filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against each of the 4 This was timely under the letters of assent because it was more than 150 days before the anniversary date of the applicable labor agreement. 5 Consistent with this court's holding in Aldrich Air Conditioning, 717 F.2d at 458-59, the successor collective bargaining agreements which the parties were ordered to enter into did not contain interest arbitration clauses. -6- defendants. The regional director for the NLRB declined to issue complaints. Local 257 appealed the regional director's decision with respect to the charges against Amick Electric, and the general counsel for the NLRB affirmed the decision to deny relief. See Separate Appendix of Appellants at 359 (letter from general counsel of NLRB to Local 257). On August 5, 1994, Local 257 filed four civil actions in federal district court. Local 257 sought, pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, enforcement of the CIR arbitration awards issued against defendants. The district court consolidated the actions, and defendants together filed counterclaims and cross-claims (Counts I, II, and III) against Local 257 and St. Louis-NECA. In Count I, defendants sought a declaration that the CIR decisions are unenforceable. In Count II, defendants alleged that Local 257 had violated the LMRA. In Count III, defendants claimed that Local 257 and St. Louis-NECA had violated antitrust provisions of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., § 302 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, by participating in the so-called Target Fund -- a fund, financed by Local 257, which provides partial payment of wages paid to members of Local 257 in circumstances where the employer has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with Local 257. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In a final disposition of the case, the district court held that the CIR decisions are binding and enforceable against defendants, slip op. at 6-13, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction defendants' -7- counterclaim alleging that Local 257 had violated the LMRA,6 id. at 17-19, and dismissed defendants' Count III counterclaim/cross-claim alleging that Local 257 and St. Louis-NECA had violated federal antitrust laws, id. at 14-17. This appeal followed.