Opinion ID: 6983987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary judgment dismissal of action and confirmation of arbitration award

Text: In reviewing a district court’s decision refusing to vacate or confirming an arbitration award, we examine legal conclusions de novo and findings of fact for clear error. See First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 948, 115 S.Ct. 1920, 131 L.Ed.2d 985 (1995); see also DiRussa v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 121 F.3d 818, 821 (2d Cir.1997), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 118 S.Ct. 695, 139 L.Ed.2d 639 (1998). “[Arbitration awards are subject to very limited review in order to avoid undermining the twin goals of arbitration, namely, settling disputes efficiently and avoiding long and expensive litigation.” Willemijn Houdstermaat-schappij, BV v. Standard Microsystems Corp., 103 F.3d 9, 12 (2d Cir.1997) (quotation and citation omitted). The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), 9 U.S.C. § 10, lists several grounds on which a district court may vacate arbitration awards, none of which BCL invokes. 2 Instead, BCL argues that the arbitration award should be vacated as contrary to public policy because it “seeks to enforce a collective bargaining agreement provision that is illegal under the [NLRA].” Perma-Line Corp. of America v. Sign Pictorial and Display Union, Local 230, 639 F.2d 890, 895 (2d Cir.1981); see also Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U.S. 72, 83-84, 102 S.Ct. 851, 70 L.Ed.2d 833 (1982) (federal court has duty to consider legality of collective bargaining agreement before enforcing it). BCL rests its challenge on Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) which states: It shall be an unfair labor practice for any labor organization and any employer to enter into any contact or agreement, express or implied, whereby such employer ceases or refrains or agrees to cease or refrain from handling, using, selling, transporting or otherwise dealing in any of the products of any other employer, or to cease doing business with any other person, and any contract or agreement entered into heretofore or hereafter containing such an agreement shall be to such extent unenforcible [sic] and void. 29 U.S.C. § 158(e). This section of the NLRA was meant to prohibit secondary boycotts. See National Woodwork Mfrs. Ass’n v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 634-36, 87 S.Ct. 1250, 18 L.Ed.2d 357 (1967). A provision does not violate Section 8(e) if, based on all the surrounding circumstances, the clause at issue is “primary” in nature because it is “addressed to the labor relations of the contracting employer vis-a-vis his own employees.” Id. at 645, 87 S.Ct. 1250. The provision does violate Section 8(e) if it is “secondary” in nature, ie., it is addressed to other relationships. See id. “[T]he union’s purpose is primary in nature if the clauses were designed to preserve or protect the work of the affected employees; if to satisfy union objectives elsewhere, the union’s purpose is secondary in nature and therefore objectionable.” R.M. Perlman, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers’ Union Local 89-22-1, 33 F.3d 145, 154 (2d Cir.1994); see National Woodwork, 386 U.S. at 644-45, 87 S.Ct. 1250. In other words, “[i]f the object of the agreement is to benefit the employees of the bargaining unit represented by the union, it is ‘primary’ and in such event does not fall within the proscription of § 8(e), whereas if the object is the application of pressure on an outside employer in order to require him to accede to union objectives it is ‘secondary’ and within the prohibition of § 8(e).” A. Duie Pyle, Inc. v. NLRB, 383 F.2d 772, 776 (3d Cir.1967) (footnote omitted). In short, a lawful work preservation agreement is (1) aimed at preserving work that union-represented employees in the bargaining unit traditionally perform, and (2) directed at work over which the contracting employer has control. See NLRB v. ILA 447 U.S. 490, 504-05, 100 S.Ct. 2305, 65 L.Ed.2d 289 (1980). BCL asks this court to vacate the arbitration award because the Containerization Agreement is an illegal union signatory agreement designed to achieve secondary union objectives outside the primary employment relationship. According to BCL, an industry-wide bargaining unit is not the appropriate measure of the primary employment relationship when the unit is many times larger than the work force’ of the primary employer, which has little contact with the majority of the bargaining unit employees. See NLRB v. National Maritime Union, 486 F.2d 907, 914 (2d Cir.1973). According to BCL, enforcement of the Containerization Agreement beyond the direct employees of Maher Terminals to the coast-wide bargaining unit violates Section 8(e) because the ILA is using the agreement to achieve secondary objectives outside the primary employment relationship. Alternatively, BCL argues the district court overlooked issues of fact as to whether a coast-wide bargaining unit existed, its scope and whether BCL consented to it. The district court properly refused to vacate the arbitration award. We hold that BCL was bound by the Containerization Agreement, which was a valid work preservation provision aimed at saving work for ILA members on a coast-wide basis. The 1996 Master Contract explicitly stated that it was a “full and complete agreement on all issues relating to the employment of longshore employees on container and ro-ro 3 vessels and terminals in all ports from Maine to Texas....” The agreement also provided that “[t]he ILA’s Master Contract jurisdiction continues on a multi-port bargaining unit basis covering all ports from Maine to Texas at which ships of the [Carriers Container Council, Inc.] carriers and subscribers may call.” The NYSA-ILA General Cargo Agreement also states that BCL is a party to the Master Contract covering all ports on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from Maine to Texas. This inclusive language indicates that the agreement not only defined the bargaining unit but also the primary employment relationship on a coast-wide basis. We reject BCL’s attempt to narrow the employment relationship to include only employees of Maher Terminals. The Containerization Agreement was designed to preserve the work of ILA employees in the coast-wide bargaining unit and was directed at BCL by virtue of its status in the multi-employer bargaining association, the NYSA. BCL’s proposed move to Salem would deplete the number of longshore jobs available to ILA workers in the port of New York and divert them to non-union labor in Salem. This effect would directly hurt existing members of the bargaining unit, and the Container Agreement by prohibiting BCL’s proposed move preserves work within the primary employment relationship. BCL’s reliance on National Maritime Union thus is misplaced because the members of the bargaining unit here constitute the actual work force and directly benefit from the Containerization Agreement. The district court also properly found that there was no material issue of fact as to whether BCL unequivocally intended to be bound by the Master Contract that NYSA negotiated on its behalf. We are not persuaded by BCL’s argument that it was not a party to the Master Contract because it was not the direct employer of the longshoremen. Preliminarily, we note that BCL did not challenge the LIGC’s findings that the Master Contract bound BCL. It was not until BCL filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB that BCL raised this issue. Assuming that this argument is properly before us, we reject it. Contrary to BCL’s assertion, our decision in ILA v. Delta S.S. Lines, Inc., 832 F.2d 759 (2d Cir.1987), does not require us to determine the validity of the Containerization Agreement based on whether BCL was an employer within the common law meaning of the term. In Delta Steamship, we did not reach the Section 8(e) question because issues of fact existed regarding Delta’s intention to be bound by the multi-employer collective bargaining agreement at issue. See id. at 763-764. Here, however, BCL unequivocally intended to be bound by the collective bargaining agreement and we find no reason to abandon the multi-employer analysis applicable to the industry-wide contract and consider instead common law employer issues. We look to the employers’ consent to determine whether different employers belong to the same bargaining unit. See NLRB v. New York Typographical Union, No. 6, 632 F.2d 171, 183 (2d Cir.1980). “The Board has consistently held that the essential element warranting the establishment of multi-employer units is clear evidence that the employers unequivocally intend to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than individual action.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). “[T]he presumption that a single-employer bargaining unit is appropriate can be overcome only by ‘clear evidence that the employers unequivocally intend to be bound in collective bargaining by group rather than by individual action.’ ” NLRB v. 1115 Nursing Home & Serv. Emp. Union, 44 F.3d 136, 138 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam), quoting New York Typographical Union, No. 6, 632 F.2d at 183. However, mere agreement to bargain as a group is insufficient; there must be actual bargaining on that basis. See 1115 Nursing Home & Serv. Emp. Union, 44 F.3d at 138. Here, BCL was a member of NYSA from 1979 until its formal resignation on June 20, 1996. By virtue of its membership in the association, BCL granted NYSA authority to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement with the ILA. Actual bargaining on a multi-employer basis took place while BCL was a member of NYSA. BCL was bound by the resulting agreements, including the 1996 Master Contract, which included the containerization provisions. Therefore, the district court correctly held that no issue of fact existed regarding BCL’s intent to be bound by the multi-employer Master Contract. Because the Containerization Agreement within that contract was a valid work preservation clause directed at the primary employment relationship, the contract was legal and Judge Keenan correctly held that Section 8(e) does not prohibit confirmation and enforcement of the arbitration award.