2nd Circ. Revives Ironworkers-Carpenters Union Turf War: Another reason why developers need to be weary of who manages their projects and their signatory obligations. The industry has changed and so has the building model.

Provisions in collective bargaining agreements crafted to win unions new work rather than preserve existing jobs violate federal antitrust law, the Second Circuit said Wednesday in an order reviving a “turf battle” over New England construction jobs between ironworkers’ and carpenters’ unions.

This case arose out of a dispute over subcontracting clauses in collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) between the Carpenters' Union and various construction companies and construction managers. The clauses effectively barred subcontracting of construction work with non-Carpenter affiliates. Ironworkers alleged that the Carpenters have used these subcontracting clauses to expand the scope of work assigned to the Carpenters Union to include work traditionally assigned to the Ironworkers. The district court granted summary judgment to the Carpenters. The Second Circuit held that the Carpenters have met the requirements of the construction industry proviso of Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, but that, on this record, there were factual disputes that precluded a decision on whether the conduct fell within the non‐statutory exemption to antitrust liability. The court explained, to demonstrate that the disputed subcontracting practices were sheltered by the non‐statutory exemption (and thus to defeat the Ironworkers' antitrust claim completely), the Carpenters must show that these practices furthered legitimate aims of collective bargaining, in a way that was not unduly restrictive of market competition. Accordingly, the court vacated the district court's judgment as to the Sherman Act claim; affirmed as to the unfair labor practices claim; and remanded.

Download PDF

 

Source: Justia US Law