Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Taylor Sheet Metal, Inc. v. International Association of Sheet Metal

United States District Court, D. Oregon

December 7, 2017

TAYLOR SHEET METAL INC., Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS UNION, LOCAL No. 16, Defendant.

          ORDER

          ANNA J. BROWN United States Senior District Judge

         Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued Findings and Recommendation (#27) on October 2, 2017, in which she recommends the Court grant the Motion (#11) for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Taylor Sheet M Inc., and deny the Motion (#20) for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant International Association of Sheet M Air, and Transportation Workers Union, Local No. 16. Defendant filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

         When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

         BACKGROUND

         The following facts are taken from the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation and accepted as undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

         On January 7, 2014, Plaintiff executed a Collective Bargaining Agreement with Defendant pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 158(f)(referred to as a “prehire” agreement). The Agreement expired on June 30, 2016, but renewed automatically each year. Either party could renegotiate the Agreement's terms by providing written notice up to 90 days before the Agreement expired. If negotiations became deadlocked, the parties agreed to submit the matter to binding arbitration before the National Joint Adjustment Board (NJAB).

         On March 9, 2016, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it was reopening the Agreement for negotiation.

         On January 12, 2017, Defendant declared the negotiations were at an impasse, which triggered the Agreement's arbitration provision. Plaintiff objected to the arbitration proceeding. An arbitration panel was appointed over Plaintiff's objection.

         On January 23, 2017, Plaintiff informed Defendant by letter that it intended to withdraw from the Union.

         On March 10, 2017, Plaintiff raised objections to the NJAB's jurisdiction to arbitrate the matter, including an objection that the Agreement entered into pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 158(f) was subject to repudiation and that Plaintiff, in fact, repudiated the Agreement. Plaintiff also filed a grievance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleging Defendant failed to bargain in good faith in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 158(b)(3).

         On April 12, 2017, the NLRB dismissed Plaintiff's grievance on the ground that the parties did not have a statutory duty to bargain because Plaintiff employed too few employees.

         On April 18, 2017, the arbitration panel convened. Although someone appeared on behalf of Plaintiff, the record does not reflect Plaintiff actually participated in the arbitration hearing.

         On April 24, 2017, the arbitration panel issued a written decision. The panel stated Plaintiff raised several objections to the proceeding in writing to the NJAB and “[t]hose objections were considered, but it was determined that all procedural and jurisdictional requirements had been met.” The arbitration panel directed the parties to execute a four-year agreement with specified terms.

         On May 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Petition (#1) to Vacate Arbitration Award in this Court. On July 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion (#11) for Summary Judgment. On August 4, 2017, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.