Opinion ID: 1032005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Arbitrators’ Authority

Text: The Carpenters argue that arbitrators Kelly and Pagan lacked authority to enter their respective Awards. “An arbitrator’s power is both derived from, and limited by, the collective-bargaining agreement.” Barrentine v. Ark.-Best Freight Sys. Inc., 450 U.S. 728, 744 (1981). Because an arbitrator cannot rule on matters the parties have not agreed to arbitrate, see AT&T Techs., Inc. v. Comm’cns Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643, 648–49 (1986) (“[A]rbitrators derive their 21 authority to resolve disputes only because the parties have agreed in advance to submit such grievances to arbitration.”), a fortiori he cannot decide the rights of non-parties. The Carpenters challenge the arbitrators’ authority on three bases. First, they argue that the Agreement is void as between Local 200 and the Employers because the duty of exclusive bargaining forbids an employer in a section 9(a) relationship with one union from entering into a section 8(f) agreement with any other union. Second, they argue that the Board’s certification of the SWRCC in effect decertified Local 200 as the representative of the Employers’ workers and voided the Agreement as between Local 200 and the Employers. Finally, the Carpenters argue that the disputes are representational in nature and therefore beyond the arbitrators’ authority. 1. SWRCC’s § 9(a) Certifications and Right of Exclusive Representation in PLA Context The Carpenters first argue that “the principle of exclusive representation precludes any Section 8(f) agreement between [the Employers] and [Local 200].” Br. of Appellants 32, United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners v. Operative Plasterer’s & Cement Masons’ Int’l Ass’n, No. 11-7155 (Frye Br. of Appellants); Jordan Br. of Appellants 31. They contend that because the section 9(a) certifications trigger the duty of exclusive bargaining, the Employers cannot also enter a multi-unit PLA—like the Agreement—because doing so would violate their duty to bargain only with the SWRCC over work assignments. We need not decide whether section 9(a) categorically permits the Agreement. The Carpenters concede that the Agreement between the Employers and all signatory unions is permissible under section 8(f). See Boston Harbor, 507 U.S. 22 at 230 (approving multiemployer, multi-union PLAs under section 8(f)). But, they argue, the Agreement is unlawful under section 9(a) because, unlike section 8(f), an employer in a section 9(a) relationship owes the union a duty of exclusive bargaining. Section 8(f) is an exception to the majority support requirement, however, not to the exclusive bargaining requirement of sections 9(a) and 8(a)(5). See Madison Indus., Inc., 349 N.L.R.B. 1306, 1307 (2007); Deklewa, 282 N.L.R.B. at 1387 & n.50. As we have explained, a union party to a section 8(f) agreement serves as the limited section 9(a) representative of the bargaining unit it purports to represent during the term of that agreement. Deklewa, 282 N.L.R.B. at 1387; see also id. at 1386 (“It is clear that the imposition of enforceable contract obligations on signatories to an 8(f) agreement is contingent, in part, on the signatory union possessing exclusive representative status.”). 7 Section 8(a)(5) forbids an employer in a section 8(f) agreement from repudiating the agreement and negotiating with a nonsignatory union (at least while the agreement is in effect) in precisely the same way that section 8(a)(5) forbids an employer from refusing to bargain with a union certified under section 9(a). See Local No. 150, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs v. NLRB, 480 F.2d 1186, 1191 (D.C. Cir. 7 We previously rejected the Board’s pre-Deklewa interpretation of section 8(f) in favor of the one it articulated in Deklewa. See Local 150, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs v. NLRB, 480 F.2d 1186, 1190–91 (D.C. Cir. 1973); see also Deklewa, 282 N.L.R.B. at 1387–88. Moreover, seven sister circuits have explicitly adopted the Board’s interpretation of section 8(f). Am. Automatic Sprinkler Sys., Inc. v. NLRB, 163 F.3d 209, 215 n.3 (4th Cir. 1998) (citing cases). Only the Fourth Circuit has rejected Deklewa and did so because of preexisting contrary circuit precedent. Indus. TurnAround Corp. v. NLRB, 115 F.3d 248, 254 (4th Cir. 1997) (citing Clark v. Ryan, 818 F.2d 1102 (4th Cir. 1987)). 23 1973) (“[A]n employer[] who has entered into a validly executed § 8(f) pre-hire agreement . . . should be held to the same standard of conduct in regard to unfair labor practices as an employer who has entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union certified to have majority status.”); see also GEM Mgmt. Co., 339 N.L.R.B. 489, 501 (2003). The Carpenters’ argument therefore fails because if, as the Carpenters concede, the Agreement does not violate the duty of exclusive bargaining under section 8(f), it does not do so under section 9(a). 8 8 The Carpenters also argue that section 8(f) agreements cannot “trump the Section 7 [of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 157] rights of workers at any time.” Frye Br. of Appellants 31; Jordan Br. of Appellants 30. We agree but the Carpenters fail to point to anything in the Agreement that violates section 7’s guarantee of the rights of self-organization and collective bargaining. Unions and employers are free to alter the scope of bargaining units—even units certified pursuant to section 9(a)—by entering into multi-unit agreements like the Agreement. See The Idaho Statesman v. NLRB, 836 F.2d 1396, 1400 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Utility Workers Union, 203 N.L.R.B. 230, 238 (1973), enforced 490 F.2d 1383 (6th Cir. 1974); Shell Oil Co., 194 N.L.R.B. 988, 995 (1972) (“It is well settled that the parties to a collective-bargaining relationship may voluntarily agree . . . to the enlargement or alteration of an existing unit, or to the merger of separate units, theretofore recognized by the parties or found by the Board to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.” (emphasis in original)), review denied sub nom. Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers, Int’l Union v. NLRB, 486 F.2d 1266 (D.C. Cir. 1973). We therefore cannot conceive of how the voluntary merger of the units represented by the SWRCC and Local 200 in this run-of-the-mill PLA violates section 7. Moreover, given that the NLRA “not only tolerates but actively encourages voluntary settlements of work assignment controversies between unions,” Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261, 266 (1964), we see nothing in the Agreement’s arbitration provisions that violates section 7. 24 2. Certification of SWRCC qua Decertification of Local 200 Relying on Deklewa, the Carpenters next argue that by certifying the SWRCC as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employers’ employees, the Board necessarily decertified Local 200 as the representative of those Employees, thereby voiding the Agreement as between the Employers and Local 200. Their argument proceeds as follows: the Agreement’s recognition clause—which provides that “[t]he Contractor recognizes the Council and the signatory local Unions as the exclusive bargaining representative for the employees engaged in Project Work,” PSA § 3.1, Frye JA 256—obligates signatory employers to recognize all of the signatory unions as the exclusive representatives of each and every employee. Under Deklewa, if a bargaining unit subsequently votes to reject the union purporting to represent it under a section 8(f) agreement, that vote “will void the [section] 8(f) agreement and will terminate the [section] 8(f) relationship.” Deklewa, 282 N.L.R.B. at 1385. The Carpenters reason that the employees’ vote in favor of the SWRCC also in effect rejected, and therefore decertified, Local 200. And under Deklewa those decertifications voided the Agreement between Local 200 and the Employer, terminating the arbitrator’s authority. 9 9 The parties dispute whether the Employers joined the Agreement before or after the SWRCC was certified. If the Employers became parties after the SWRCC was certified, its certifications could not have decertified Local 200 because, even under the Carpenters’ theory, the Employers had not yet recognized Local 200. We decline to resolve the dispute because, even assuming arguendo the Employers became parties to the Agreement before the certifications, the certifications did not decertify Local 200. 25 We reject the Carpenters’ reading of the Agreement’s recognition clause. The clause merely requires what section 8(f) permits: employers must recognize the signatory unions as the exclusive bargaining representatives of the employees they purport to represent—for work governed by the Agreement—irrespective of any showing of majority support and irrespective of whether a particular employee is in fact a member of the signatory union. See Trustees of S. Cal. IBEWNECA Pension Trust Fund v. Flores, 519 F.3d 1045, 1047–48 (9th Cir. 2008); see also Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U.S. 270, 279 (1956) (“Like other contracts, [a collective bargaining agreement] must be read as a whole and in the light of the law relating to it when it was made.”). Because the Agreement’s recognition clause did not require the Employers to recognize Local 200 as the representative of their employees, the Board’s certification of the SWRCC did not affect the contractual relationship between the Employers and Local 200. In fact, assuming arguendo that the representation certifications took place after the Employers joined the Agreement, the employees’ election can be seen as ratifying the Employers’ and the SWRCC’s decisions to enter into the section 8(f) Agreement. See Comtel Sys. Tech., Inc., 305 N.L.R.B. 287, 290 & n.14 (1991). The section 9(a) certifications of the SWRCC therefore did not void the Agreement as between the Employers and Local 200. 3. Representational vs. Jurisdictional Nature of the Dispute Finally, the Carpenters argue that the dispute between the unions is representational, not jurisdictional. Because the Board has exclusive jurisdiction over representation questions, see Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union 669 v. Herman, 234 F.3d 1316, 1320 (D.C. Cir. 2000), they argue that the arbitrators had no authority to decide the dispute between the Carpenters and the Plasterers. But as the 26 Carpenters concede, Local 200 disclaims any interest in representing the Employers’ employees. Local 200 claims that it only wants to obtain the plastering work for its members and nothing in the record suggests otherwise. Because this case is simply “a contest between two groups of employees . . . actively contend[ing] for disputed work,” the dispute is paradigmatically jurisdictional. Sea-Land, 884 F.2d at 1411 (emphases deleted); see also Sierra Pacific, 85 F.3d at 652. The Carpenters’ argument thus rests on an unstated assumption, to wit, that the section 9(a) certifications entitle their members to all work contracted out to the Employers pursuant to the Agreement. Their assumption—and therefore their argument—suffers from a fatal flaw: the Board’s certification of a particular bargaining unit is not a determination of the work to which that unit is entitled. As the Supreme Court has explained: [A] Board certification in a representation proceeding is not a jurisdictional award; it is merely a determination that a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit have selected a particular labor organization as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining. It is true that such certification presupposes a determination that the group of employees involved constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes, and that in making such determination the Board considers the general nature of the duties and work tasks of such employees. However, unlike a jurisdictional award, this determination by the Board does not freeze the duties or work tasks of the employees in the unit found appropriate. Thus, the Board’s unit finding does not per se preclude the employer from adding to, or subtracting from, the employees’ work assignments. While that finding may be determined by, it does not 27 determine, job content; nor does it signify approval, in any respect, of any work task claims which the certified union may have made before this Board or elsewhere. Carey v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 375 U.S. 261, 269 (1964) (quotation marks omitted). The Board has further clarified that its sole function in representation proceedings is to ascertain and certify the name of the bargaining representative, if any, that has been designated by the employees in the appropriate unit. It is not the Board’s responsibility in representation proceedings to decide whether employees in the bargaining unit are entitled to do any particular work or whether an employer has properly reassigned work from employees in the bargaining unit to other employees. Gas Serv. Co., 140 N.L.R.B. 445, 447 (1963). The Board’s certification of the SWRCC as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Employers’ employees thus decides nothing about the work to which those employees are entitled under the Agreement. 10 Because this dispute is 10 In fact, when the Board resolves a jurisdictional dispute under its section 10(k) authority, a section 9(a) certification is but a single factor of a multi-factor test. See Int’l Ass’n of Machinists, Lodge No. 1743, 135 N.L.R.B. 1402, 1410–11 (1962); see also, e.g., Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 196, 358 N.L.R.B. No. 87, slip op. at 5–6 (July 24, 2012). Although such certification “favors awarding the disputed work to employees represented by” the certified union, Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 150, 354 N.L.R.B. No. 112, slip op. at 5 (Nov. 30, 2009), it is not dispositive. Indeed, the Board has awarded work to an uncertified union over a certified one. See, e.g., Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local 8, 324 N.L.R.B. 666, 667–68 28 quintessentially jurisdictional and a section 9(a) certification does not resolve work assignment questions, the arbitrators were plainly authorized to make the Awards.