United States District Court, D. Oregon
J. BROWN United States Senior District Judge
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).
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
following facts are taken from the Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendation and accepted as undisputed unless
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).
March 9, 2016, Defendant notified Plaintiff that it was
reopening the Agreement for negotiation.
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
January 23, 2017, Plaintiff informed Defendant by letter that
it intended to withdraw from the Union.
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).
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.
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
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
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,