Opinion ID: 2823457
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Labonte Drywall's Stated Intent to Withdraw

Text: Regarding the second question, we also agree with the district court's determination that the April 3, 2007 letter expressed an unequivocal intent to terminate Labonte Drywall's collective bargaining relationship with the Union. See Labonte Drywall Co., 2014 WL 2566136, at . The April 3, 2007 letter clearly states that Labonte Drywall has not . . . done work in the union now since December of 2005 and is no longer bidding or doing any more union work. The letter, on its face, contained no language suggesting that Labonte Drywall was equivocal in its desire to no longer work with the Union. See Haas Elec., Inc., 299 F.3d at 29 (Stahl, J., concurring) (finding that employer's letter expressed an unequivocal intent to terminate collective bargaining relationship even though it admittedly did not use precise language in articulating its intent to withdraw); cf. Louisiana Bricklayers & Trowel Trades Pension Fund & Welfare Fund v. Alfred Miller Gen. Masonry Contracting Co., 157 F.3d 404, 409 n.12 (5th Cir. 1998) (finding termination letter ineffective when it equivocated by agreeing to abide by the terms of the [collective bargaining agreement] 'for the immediate future.'). Moreover, the collective bargaining agreement in effect from 2005 to 2009 provided that all workers hired by an employer, who worked more - 14 - than seven days, had to become (or seek to become) members of the Union, as long as the employer was engaged in the kind of work covered by this agreement. Since the collective bargaining agreement, by its terms, does not allow an employer to perform drywall work without hiring Union workers, the letter's statement that Labonte Drywall was no longer bidding or doing any more union work clearly indicated its intent to terminate the ongoing relationship with the Union. The parties' conduct after Dany Labonte sent the April 3, 2007 letter confirms that they understood that the letter had terminated the collective bargaining relationship between Labonte Drywall and the Union. Cf. Haas Elec., 299 F.3d at 29 (Stahl, J., concurring) (finding that employer's letter to union terminated collective bargaining relationship where the union did not question[] the meaning of the letter at the time and the employer's subsequent conduct was consistent with its stated intent to withdraw). Labonte Drywall last employed Union workers in December 2005, and there is no evidence in the record that the company solicited Union work or performed any other Union-related activity after that time. Importantly, between the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2010, Union representatives visited Labonte Drywall multiple times to request that the company rejoin the Union. Besides these visits, Labonte Drywall received no - 15 - communication from the Union or the Agency until the February 2010 letter requesting an audit of Labonte Drywall's records. Labonte Drywall was no longer receiving copies of the collective bargaining agreements from the Union. Labonte Drywall also had stopped receiving copies of the Union's wage and benefit packages. The Union's director of contractor relations testified that the Agency stop[s] sending these wage and benefit packages to signatory employers if they are no longer members of the Union and had terminated their collective bargaining relationship with the Union. In short, the parties' actions demonstrate that both understood that the April 3, 2007 letter had ended their agreement.