United States District Court, N.D. Illinois
April 29, 2004.
J.W. PETERS, INC., Plaintiff,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRICK, STRUCTURAL, ORNAMENTAL AND REINFORCING IRON WORKERS, LOCAL UNION #1, et al., Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: MILTON SHADUR, Senior District Judge
For the reasons stated at greater length in the course of this
morning's motion hearing, reasons that conform to the decision by our
Court of Appeals in NLRB v. Bufco. Corp., 899 F.2d 608, 610-11 (7th Cir.
1990) and to the uniform decisions of other Courts of Appeals in Int'l
Assoc. of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local 3 v. NLRB,
643 F.2d 770 (3d Cir. 1988), Mesa Verde Constr. Co. v. N. Cal. Dist.
Council of Laborers, 861 F.2d 1124 (9th Cir. 1988)(en banc) and NLRB v.
W.L. Miller Co., 871 F.2d 745 (8th Cir. 1989), this Court holds that the
purported unilateral repudiation by J.W, Peters, Inc. ("Peters") of its
long-established pre-hire agreements with the International Association
of Brick, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers Local Union
#1 ("Union"), most recently via the December 12, 2002 Compliance
Agreement between Peters and Union ("Compliance Agreement"), is a nullity
and totally invalid. Accordingly the Compliance Agreement is still in
full force and effect and is in turn governed by the most recent Agreement between
the Associated Steel Erectors of Chicago, Illinois and Union for the
period beginning June 1, 2003 and ending May 31, 2006 ("Principal
Agreement")(see Compliance Agreement ¶ 4).
Because both the Compliance Agreement and the Principal Agreement are
thus in full force and effect, Peters' motion to stay any proceedings
before the Joint Arbitration Board on the same subject is denied.*fn1
And because Peters' action has taken the form of its Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment, and because this Court's final judgment is in favor
of Union and its codefendant and against Peters as to whether the
pre-hire agreement between the parties (the Compliance Agreement) "has
been properly and effectively repudiated" (as Peters' prayer for relief
puts it), this action is dismissed with the entry of this final judgment.