The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robert D. Morgan, Chief Judge.
This complaint arose out of a jurisdictional dispute involving
work performed by members of the defendant Bridge, Structural &
Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 111, which the plaintiff, Sheet
Metal Workers International Association, Local 91, claimed to
have been properly awardable to its members. The defendant J &
J Steel Erectors, Inc. is a corporation headquartered in the
State of Iowa and an employer engaged in an industry affecting
The cause is now before the court on cross-motions for summary
judgment. By those motions, all parties concede that there
exists no genuine issue as to any material fact.
In 1979, J & J was engaged in the construction of phases II and
III of a construction project in Rock Island, Illinois, which
is designated as the centennial warehouse project. Within the
purview of this complaint, its contractual undertaking involved
the installation of Varco Pruden metal roof decking lighter
than ten gauge, hereinafter the disputed work. Plaintiff claims
entitlement to that work for its members.
J & J was a member of Master Builders of Iowa, headquartered at
Des Moines, Iowa, and of Quad Cities Builders Association,
headquartered at Rock Island, Illinois.*fn2 The dispute
peripherally involves a collective bargaining agreement between
QC, on behalf of its associated members, and Local 111. J & J
had no collective bargaining agreement with plaintiff.
The dispute directly involves a written agreement entitled
"Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the
Construction Industry," which had been negotiated by the
Building Trades Department, AFL-CIO, on behalf of all of its
constituent unions. Both plaintiff and Local 111 were parties
to that agreement, by reason of the fact of its adoption by
AFL-CIO. Associated General Contractors of America, hereinafter
AGC, was one of several construction industry associations
which were signatories to the plan. At all relevant times, MBI
was a chapter of AGC. QC was not affiliated with that
The plan is a negotiated agreement between AFL-CIO and the
signatory employer associations, designed to provide a
procedure for the settlement of jurisdictional disputes without
strikes or work stoppages and without the necessity of
resorting to proceedings before the National Labor Relations
Board under Section 10(k) of the Labor Management Relations
Act. 29 U.S.C. § 160(k). The plan is implemented by a Joint
Administrative Committee composed of representatives of both
labor and management. It created an Impartial Jurisdictional
Disputes Board, hereinafter IJDB, and vested that Board with
jurisdiction to consider and decide jurisdictional disputes
arising out of work assignments.*fn3 Decisions by the IJDB
are appealable to the Joint Committee within ten days after any
such decision is rendered.
The phase II work was completed by members of Local 111 in
June, 1979. Plaintiff filed its complaint herein on June 21,
1979, praying damages to compensate it and its members for that
work which it alleged to have been wrongfully performed by
The phase III disputed work was assigned the same way. On June
22, 1979, plaintiff notified J & J by letter that it claimed
the work and that it would invoke the plan procedures before
the IJDB. On July 20, 1979, that body notified the parties that
it had determined that plaintiff was entitled to the disputed
work. Again, no appeal was taken. The work was completed in
August, 1979, after which plaintiff amended its complaint,
adding a second count for damages on account of the disputed
work under phase III of the project.
The complaint is grounded upon the provisions of Section 301(a)
of the Labor Management Relations Act. 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). It
rests upon plaintiff's position that J & J had a contractual
obligation to comply with the decisions of the IJDB, which is
enforcible under Section 301(a).
Section 10(k) of the Labor Management Relations Act empowers
the NLRB to hear and determine jurisdictional disputes. That
Section further provides that the NLRB shall abstain from
exercising that power if it finds that the parties have
adjusted the dispute or that they have agreed upon methods for
the voluntary adjustment thereof. Section 301 also vests
jurisdiction in the district courts to enforce 10(k) awards, i.
e., awards by the NLRB or awards obtained through an
agreed-upon method for voluntary adjustment. Thus, Section 301
provides a jurisdictional basis for enforcement of IJDB awards
under the plan, e.g., Local 416, Sheet Metal Workers v.
Helgesteel Corp., 507 F.2d 1053 (7th Cir. 1974); Drywall
Tapers & Pointers, Local 1974 v. Plasterers' Union,
601 F.2d 675 (2d Cir. 1979), and the concomitant jurisdiction to
determine whether an IJDB award is valid and enforcible against
a party sought to be charged.
The critical issue before the court is stated by a partial
paraphrase of language from plaintiff's brief. The IJDB
"decisions * * * must be enforced if the parties were bound to
the Plan. The only issues then are whether J & J was a party to
the Plan," or if it was not a party to the plan, whether it
"may raise the nonparty defense."
It must be concluded, from undisputed facts, that J & J was not
a party to the plan. An employer is bound to the plan only when
any one of three circumstances exists, namely: (1) that it had
executed a written stipulation to be bound by the plan, or (2)
that it is a member of an employer association which had
authority to bind its members to the plan and which exercised
that authority by a written stipulation to so bind its members,
or (3) that it is a signatory to a ...