Laborers Hlt. Welfare v. Westlake Development

30 Citing cases

  1. Bd. of Trs. of IBEW Local Union No. 100 Pension Tr. Fund v. Power Design Elec., Inc.

    CASE NO. 1:17-CV-01483-EPG (E.D. Cal. Sep. 10, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    Under the one-employee-unit rule, "'a construction industry employer who employs a single employee pursuant to a Section 8(f) pre-hire agreement is entitled to repudiate the agreement by conduct sufficient to put the union and the employee on notice that the agreement has been terminated.'" Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. Fund for N. California v. Westlake Dev., 53 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Operating Eng'rs Pension Trust v. Beck Eng'g & Surveying Co., 746 F.2d 557, 566 (9th Cir. 1984)); see Haas Garage Door Co., 308 NLRB 1186, 1186-87 (1992) (holding that the one-man-unit rule applies in an 8(f) context, and that under the rule "when a unit consists of no more than a single permanent employee at all material times, an employee has no statutory duty to bargain and thus, will not be found in violation of the act for disavowing a bargaining agreement and refusing to bargain"); Stack Electric, Inc., 290 NLRB 575, 577-78 (1988) (relying on one-employee-unit rule to hold that an employer who has entered into a § 8(f) pre-hire agreement does not have a statutory duty to bargain when the bargaining unit consists of no more than one employee). Thus, the Ninth Circuit has held that although, as a general rule, the "unilateral action of an employer will not render a CBA void and unenforceable, in the unique circumstances of a section 8(f) pre-hire collective bargaining agr

  2. Baker Concrete Constr. Inc. v. Reinforced Concrete Iron Workers Local Union 372 of the Int'l Ass'n of Bridge Structural

    Case No. 1:13-cv-225 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 2, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    Stanker & Galetto, Inc. v. New Jersey Reg'l Council of Carpenters of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., CIV. 12-5447 RBK/KMW, 2013 WL 4596947 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2013). See also Whiting-Turner, 15 F. Supp. 2d at 162 (one-employee unit rule allowed repudiation when employer had not employed anyone in the unit "for at least 10 years"); Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Westlake Development, 53 F.3d 979, 98 (9th Cir.1995) (repudiation permitted when no employees in unit for three years); J.W. Peters, 398 F.3d at 970 (repudiation permitted when no employees in unit for one year). Thus, it is settled that if an employer employs one or fewer unit employees on a permanent basis that the employer, without violating Section 8(a)(5) of the Act, may withdraw recognition from a union, repudiate its contract with the union, or unilaterally change employees' terms and conditions of employment without affording the union an opportunity to bargain.

  3. Taylor Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers Union, Local No. 16

    No. 18-35176 (9th Cir. May. 24, 2019)

    The district court vacated the arbitration award. We review its order de novo. Teamsters Local Union 58 v. BOC Gases, 249 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2001); Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. Fund for N. Cal. v. Westlake Dev. ("Westlake"), 53 F.3d 979, 981 (9th Cir. 1995). 1. The district court erred by vacating the arbitration award.

  4. Baker Concrete Constr., Inc. v. Reinforced Concrete Contractors Ass'n

    820 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2016)   Cited 8 times

    Stack Elec., 290 NLRB 575, 577 (1988).Only two of our sister circuits have had the opportunity to address this rule in circumstances analogous to those before us here: Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Westlake Dev., 53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir.1995), and J.W. Peters, Inc. v. Bridge, Structural, & Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union 1, 398 F.3d 967 (7th Cir.2005).In Westlake, the Ninth Circuit was presented with a case nearly identical to the one before us here. Westlake, an employer in the construction industry, entered into a CBA with a local union and then, over the next several years, did not hire anyone who would be covered by the agreement.

  5. MacKillop v. Lowe's Market, Inc.

    58 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 39 times
    Holding employer's contribution obligations under section 515 continue until questions regarding continuing validity of CBA are resolved by arbitration or NLRB

    Id. at 1369. Most recently, in Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Westlake Dev. Co., 53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995), ERISA benefit plans again sought recovery of contributions from an employer. The employer had signed a pre-hire collective bargaining agreement under section 8(f) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158 (f).

  6. Brian Trematore Plumbing & Heating, Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 25, Smart

    2:21-cv-05285 (BRM) (AME) (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2024)

    Throughout this Opinion, the Court will utilize the terminology-One-Employee Unit Rule as used by the Sixth and Ninth Circuit. See e.g., Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. Fund for N. California v. Westlake Dev., 53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995); Baker Concrete Const., Inc. v. Reinforced Concrete Contractors Ass'n, 820 F.3d 827 (6th Cir. 2016). B. Procedural History

  7. Board of Trustees of the Plumbers, Pipe Fitters & Mechanical Equipment Service, Local Union No. 392 Pension Fund v. R. & T. Schneider Plumbing Co.

    Case No. 1:13-cv-858 (S.D. Ohio Jul. 10, 2015)

    The Ninth Circuit in Westlake, a case relied upon heavily in Baker Concrete, confirms that the existence of a section 8(f) pre-hire agreement is a prerequisite to the application of the one-employee unit rule: J.W. Peters, Inc. v. Bridge, Structural & Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local Union 1, 398 F.3d 967, 974 (7th Cir. 2005); Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund for N. California v. Westlake Dev., 53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995); Stanker & Galetto, Inc. v. New Jersey Reg'l Council of Carpenters of United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Civ. No. 12-5447, 2013 WL 4596947 (D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2013); Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. Local Union No. 7, 15 F. Supp. 2d 162 (D. Mass. 1998); Haas Garage Door Co., 308 NLRB 1186 (1992); Searls Refrigeration Co., 297 NLRB 133 (1989). "Section 8(f) allows unions and employers in the construction industry to enter into CBAs without requiring the union to establish that it has the support of a majority of the employees in the unit covered by the CBA.

  8. LOCAL 377, RWDSU, UFCW v. 1864 TENANTS ASSOCIATION

    06 Civ. 1190 (LBS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2007)   Cited 10 times
    Recognizing "'critical distinction' between an employer's statutory duty to bargain under § 8 and an employer's contractual obligations under a collective bargaining agreement"

    While neither the Second Circuit nor this Court has considered the applicability of the single-employee unit rule in § 301 actions, several courts in other circuits have seized on the NLRB's broad language and interpreted its holdings that repudiating a collective bargaining agreement covering a single-employee unit is not an unfair labor practice to mean that such an agreement is unenforceable and the employer may repudiate it at any time without being liable for breach of contract. The Ninth Circuit considered the single-employee unit rule inLaborers Health Welfare Trust Fund v. Westlake Development, 53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995). There the union and employer entered into a § 8(f) pre-hire collective bargaining agreement which, in addition to setting wages and terms of employment, required the employer to make fringe benefit contributions to the Trust Fund on behalf of employees and contained an arbitration clause.

  9. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Seedorff Masonry, Inc.

    812 F.3d 1158 (8th Cir. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    Noting that the ordinary default rule is that plaintiffs bear the risk of failing to prove their claims, other circuits have interpreted an FCC ruling to mean that consent is an affirmative defense under the TCPA, but the FCC's 2015 Order did not use the term "affirmative defense" and did not address the "important distinction between [a defendant's] burden of going forward with evidence establishing a prima facie case for [a defense or exception], and [a plaintiff's] ultimate burden of persuasion"

    ” Numerous Board and court decisions establish that a valid § 8(f) CBA may be repudiated by “open and notorious acts by one party, known to the other, which are inconsistent with the continuance of the contract.” Contractors Health & Welfare Plan v. Harkins Constr. & Equip. Co., 733 F.2d 1321, 1326 (8th Cir.1984) (remanding a § 301 case for a finding on this issue); see Laborers Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Westlake Dev., 53 F.3d 979, 982–83 (9th Cir.1995); In re CAB Assocs., 340 N.L.R.B. 1391, 1392 (2003). From the inception of the 2010 QC Agreement, Seedorff did not hire any Local 150 member for work that Local 150 contends was covered by that agreement, nor did Seedorff make contributions to the Operators benefit funds that hiring Local 150 members would have required.

  10. Howard S. Wright v. Laborers Intern

    325 F. App'x 553 (9th Cir. 2009)

    We review a district court's legal conclusion that Plaintiffs repudiation of the agreement was not valid de novo. Laborers Health and Welfare for Northern California v. Westlake Development, 53 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995). The National Labor Relations Board held in John Deklewa Sons, 282 NLRB 1375 (1987), enf. 843 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988), that an employer cannot repudiate a Section 8(f) prehire agreement midterm.