Opinion ID: 787046
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Goodman Theatre Project and the Joint Arbitration Board Award

Text: 9 In 2000, ACS worked on a number of other projects in the Iron Workers' territory with Bricklayers-only crews; the Iron Workers did not protest. In August or September of 2000, however, ACS began working on the Goodman Theatre Project. It began the job with an all-Bricklayers crew, but the Iron Workers threatened to picket in protest. This action prompted ACS to file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). ACS contended that the Iron Workers' picketing threat violated § 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(D), and it sought a hearing under § 10(k) of the NLRA, id. § 160(k). 1 However, the Iron Workers notified the NLRB that it was disclaiming interest in the work, and, accordingly, the NLRB dismissed the unfair labor practice charge. 10 Despite disclaiming this work, on or about November 21, 2000, the Iron Workers submitted a Grievance Dispute/Demand for Arbitration with the Joint Arbitration Board (JAB), an arbitration body created under the Iron Workers' Principal Agreement to resolve disputes. The Iron Workers' Grievance alleged: (1) ACS' course of conduct bound it to the Principal Agreement, 2 and (2) ACS violated the Principal Agreement by refusing to employ members of Iron Workers Local No. 1 at the Goodman Theatre Project. The course of conduct to which the grievance referred included actions taken by ACS after signing the Short Form Agreement that were consistent with the Principal Agreement but not specifically required by the Short Form Agreement. For example, the Iron Workers alleged that, since the execution of the Short Form Agreement, ACS had provided certificates of insurance, did not cancel a wage and fringe benefit bond until February 12, 2001, and had complied with union audits. All these actions were in compliance with, and pursuant to, the terms of the Principal Agreement. 11 On January 18, 2001, the JAB held a hearing. ACS argued that the JAB lacked jurisdiction over ACS because ACS was not a signatory to or otherwise bound by the Principal Agreement. The JAB disagreed and concluded that, since August 6, 1998 (when ACS signed the Short Form Agreement), ACS had been bound by the Iron Workers' Principal Agreement. Accordingly, held the JAB, it had jurisdiction over the dispute. The JAB also found that ACS had violated the Principal Agreement by refusing to hire Iron Workers at the Goodman Theatre site and other unspecified job sites. As a remedy, the JAB ordered ACS to submit to a payroll audit under the terms of the Principal Agreement and to pay wages and benefits due for any work that should have been assigned to Iron Workers since August 6, 1998. 12 On April 18, 2001, ACS filed an action in district court that sought vacation of that award. ACS again took the position that it was not bound by the Principal Agreement, and, accordingly, that the JAB lacked jurisdiction. As will be described more fully below, the district court rendered its first decision on September 30, 2002, in which it confirmed the arbitration award. However, at the time it rendered that decision, the district court was unaware that the same parties were litigating the issue in a § 10(k) proceeding before the NLRB, and, indeed, that the NLRB had handed down its § 10(k) determination just days earlier. The action that prompted the proceeding, and the NLRB's determination therein, are described below. 13