United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. ROSENSTENGEL United States District Judge.
before the Court are the following four motions: a Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 15) filed by
Laborers International Union of North America, Construction
& General Laborers Local #100 (“Laborers”); a
Motion to Vacate (Doc. 18) filed by Brock Industrial
Services, LLC (“Brock”); a Motion to Dismiss the
Motion to Vacate (Doc. 26) filed by Laborers; and a Motion to
Enforce (Doc. 30) filed by Laborers. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court denies all four motions.
& Procedural Background
action arises out of a distribution of labor assignment
dispute between Brock and Laborers. Specifically, Brock seeks
to have the April 14, 2016 decision by the National
Maintenance Agreement Policy Committee, Inc.
(“NMAPC”) Grievance Review Subcommittee
(“GRS”) vacated by the Court. The Court will
refer to the April 14, 2016 decision from this point forward
as “the GRS decision.”
facts leading to the GRS decision are largely uncontested.
Brock and Laborers agreed to the National Maintenance
Agreement collective bargaining agreement (“NMA”)
with an effective date of January 7, 2016. (Doc. 1-3, p. 11).
The NMA provides in pertinent part that “[e]xcept for
jurisdictional disputes . . . all disputes and grievances
arising out of work performed under this Agreement . . .
shall be resolved . . . ” through the procedure
outlined in Article VI-Grievances of the NMA (hereafter
referred to as “the procedure for disputes and
grievances”) (Doc. 1-3, p. 15). This procedure for
disputes and grievances requires the parties to submit any
grievance that they cannot resolve to the NMACP for a
decision. (Doc. 1-3, p. 15). For work jurisdictional
disputes, a different procedure under the NMA applies,
beginning at Article I, Section 6 (hereafter referred to as
“the procedure for jurisdictional disputes”)
(Doc. 1-3, p. 12-13).
January 8, 2016, Brock notified Laborers that scaffolding
work, which was to be performed at the Afton Chemical Plant,
would be assigned to the International Brotherhood of
Carpenters (“Carpenters”) (Doc. 18-1). On January
11, 2016, Laborers notified the NMAPC via letter that Brock
violated the NMA when it wrongfully terminated Laborers and
subsequently awarded the scaffolding work to Carpenters on
January 8, 2016 (Doc. 1-3, p. 35). On January 21, 2016,
Laborers also notified Carpenters that there was a work
jurisdiction dispute between their respective organizations
over the scaffolding work (Doc. 1-3, p. 37).
January 25, 2016, in accordance with the procedure for
disputes and grievances (Article VI-Grievances) in the NMA,
Laborers filed a grievance with the NMAPC over the January 8,
2016 work assignment, alleging that a wrongful termination of
Laborers' members had occurred and seeking the
reinstatement of those members (Doc. 1-3, p. 39). On March 3,
2016, Brock responded to the grievance, asserting that the
dispute relating to the January 8, 2016 work assignment was a
work jurisdiction dispute and was therefore beyond the scope
of the NMAPC's arbitration authority. Brock further
requested that the grievance be dismissed and denied (Doc.
1-3, p. 54).
denied Brock's request and, on April 14, 2016, found that
“a violation of Article I, Section 5 of the National
Maintenance Agreement occurred when [Brock] made a change of
assignment and therefore the grievance was sustained.”
(Doc. 1-3, p. 3). Specifically, this section of the NMA cited
by the GRS reads as follows: “During the existence of
the Agreement, there shall be no strikes, lockouts, work
stoppages, or picketing arising out of any jurisdictional
dispute. Work will continue as originally assigned, pending
resolution of the dispute.” (Doc. 1-3, p. 12). The GRS
decision then directed the parties to “avail themselves
of the NMACP Work Assignment Dispute Process contained within
Article I commencing with Section 6” (the procedure for
jurisdictional disputes) (Doc. 1-3, p. 3).
and Laborers disagree over whether Brock's January 8,
2016 assignment of scaffolding work to Carpenters involves a
work jurisdiction dispute or a wrongful termination
(or lockout) in addition to a work jurisdiction dispute.
Related to this issue, Brock and Laborers disagree over
whether Brock previously assigned scaffolding work to
Laborers prior to the January 8, 2016 assignment of
scaffolding work to Carpenters, and thus effectively
terminated Laborers from the work by reassigning it to
12, 2016, Brock filed suit against Laborers pursuant to
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act
(“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, seeking to have
the GRS decision vacated on the basis that it is outside the
scope of the GRS's arbitration authority (Doc.
Since that time, there have been four motions filed with the
Court, one by Brock and three by Laborers, all of which are
interrelated. Specifically, on August 2, 2016, Laborers filed
a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 15), seeking dismissal of the
Complaint for failure to state a claim. On September 19,
2016, Brock filed a Motion to Vacate (Doc. 18), seeking to
have the GRS decision vacated. On September 30, 2016,
Laborers filed a Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Vacate (Doc.
26), seeking to have Brock's Motion to Vacate dismissed
on timeliness grounds, as well as being redundant with
Brock's Complaint. Lastly, on November 28, 2016, Laborers
filed a Motion to Enforce (Doc. 30), seeking to have the GRS
Motion to Dismiss the Motion to Vacate (Doc. 26)
preliminary matter, the Court will address the Motion to
Dismiss the Motion to Vacate (Doc. 26) filed by Laborers.
Laborers argues that Brock's Motion to Vacate (Doc. 18)
is untimely under the statute of limitations pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), but gives no explanation as to
how or why the FAA should control the statute of limitations
here. Moreover, Brock does not raise an FAA claim in the
Complaint, but brings its claims solely pursuant to the Labor
Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). Thus, the
Court finds Laborers' timeliness argument to be largely
undeveloped. The Court also does not find it appropriate to
strike the Motion to Vacate under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(f)(2). Accordingly, the Court denies the Motion
to Dismiss the Motion to Vacate (Doc. 26) filed by
Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 15)
filed by Laborers
withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must
“state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 570 (2007). Although a complaint does not need to
include detailed factual allegations, there “must be
enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level.” Id. at 555. Under this plausibility
standard, a court must “accept the well-pleaded facts
in the complaint as true, but [it] ‘need not accept as
true legal conclusions, or threadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory
statements.'“ Alam v. Miller Brewing Co.,
709 F.3d 662, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Brooks v.
Ross, 578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009)). A court
“must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well
as other sources courts ...