Opinion ID: 466395
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: interpretation of letter of assent-a

Text: 8 In reviewing the district court's decision, we note that the interpretation of an unambiguous, written contract is a matter of law not subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. See Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. A & P Steel, Inc., 733 F.2d 509, 519 (8th Cir.) (quoting Standard Title Insurance Co. v. United Pacific Insurance Co., 364 F.2d 287, 289 (8th Cir.1966)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 565, 83 L.Ed.2d 506 (1984); UAW, Local No. 716 v. General Electric Co., 714 F.2d 830, 832 (8th Cir.1983); Barrett v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 538 F.2d 1311, 1313 (8th Cir.1976). At issue in this case, therefore, is whether the district court erred in interpreting the Letter of Assent-A to cover only the collective bargaining agreement then in effect. After careful review of the Letter of Assent-A, we conclude that the district court did so err. 9 Our conclusion that the Letter of Assent-A provides a continuous delegation of Grimm Electric's bargaining rights until proper termination is based on the wording of that document. In particular, our judgment rests on a reading of the last sentence of the Letter of Assent-A, the so-called evergreen clause: It [the employer's delegation of bargaining authority] shall remain in effect until terminated by the undersigned employer giving written notice to [NECA] and to the Local Union at least one hundred fifty (150) days prior to the then current anniversary date of the aforementioned approved labor agreement (emphasis added). We think it clear from these words that the employer's assignment of bargaining authority under the Letter of Assent-A is an ongoing delegation, ending only on formal termination. Were this delegation of authority to end concomitantly with the collective bargaining agreement in effect at the time of execution of the Letter of Assent-A, no need would exist for such a termination provision. Further, contrary to the Grimms' assertion that the document does not refer to any future collective bargaining agreements, the phrase then current plainly points to whatever agreement may be in existence when the delegation is terminated at a future point in time. Our reading of the Letter of Assent-A is bolstered by decisions of other circuit courts interpreting the same language. 1 See NLRB v. Black, 709 F.2d 939, 940-41 (5th Cir.1983) (per curiam); Nelson Electric v. NLRB, 638 F.2d 965, 967-68 (6th Cir.1981) (per curiam); Local 2, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Gerstner Electric, Inc., 614 F.Supp. 874, 876 (E.D.Mo.1985) ([T]he only reasonable interpretation of defendant's Letter of Assent is that it authorizes the Missouri Valley Chapter to bargain for defendant under whichever collective bargaining contract is currently approved until defendant terminates authorization) (Emphasis in original). Cf. Arco Electric Co. v. NLRB, 618 F.2d 698, 699 (10th Cir.1980) (In discussing the difference between the standard letters of assent A and B, the court states that the A assent continues authorization until termination). 10 In addition to concluding that the Letter of Assent-A provides a continuous delegation of Grimm Electric's bargaining rights until proper termination, we also hold that Grimm Electric did not properly terminate that delegation and is therefore liable for the missed payments to the trust funds. We find no merit in the Grimms' argument that Grimm Electric was a party to a prehire agreement. Even assuming arguendo that Grimm Electric was bound to a prehire agreement, mere noncompliance with the contract does not in itself suffice to establish repudiation. Contractors Health & Welfare Plan v. Harkins Construction & Equipment Co., 733 F.2d 1321, 1326 (8th Cir.1984). Further, the letter dated November 16, 1983 sent by William Grimm to Local 257 did not serve to cancel the labor agreement effective February 29, 1984 as the Grimms allege. Even assuming the letter was sent on November 16, 1983, it fell short of fulfilling the termination procedure set out in the Letter of Assent-A, which called for written notice by the employer to NECA and Local 257 at least 150 days prior to the anniversary date of the labor agreement, which in this case would be February 28, 1984. The Grimms had no right to cancel the labor agreement, which was between NECA and Local 257.