New England Carpenters Central v. Labonte Drywall Company, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)

7/26/2019 New England Carpenters Central v. Labonte Drywall Company, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)

1/26

United States Court of AppealsFor the First Circuit

No. 14- 1739

NEW ENGLAND CARPENTERS CENTRAL COLLECTI ON AGENCY; TRUSTEES OFNEW ENGLAND CARPENTERS PENSI ON FUND; TRUSTEES OF NEW ENGLANDCARPENTERS GUARANTEED ANNUI TY FUND; TRUSTEES OF NEW ENGLAND

CARPENTERS HEALTH BENEFI TS FUND; TRUSTEES OF NEW ENGLANDCARPENTERS VACATI ON SAVI NGS FUND; TRUSTEES OF NEW ENGLANDCARPENTERS TRAI NI NG FUND; BOSTON TRUSTEES OF CARPENTERS

APPRENTI CESHI P & TRAI NI NG FUND; TRUSTEES OF MASSACHUSETTSCARPENTERS APPRENTI CESHI P & TRAI NI NG FUND,

Pl ai nt i f f s , Appel l ant s ,

v.

LABONTE DRYWALL COMPANY, I NC. ,

Def endant , Appel l ee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF MASSACHUSSETTS

[ Hon. Ri char d G. St ear ns, U. S. Di st r i ct J udge]

Bef ore

Bar r on, Ci r cui t J udge,Sout er , * Associ at e J ust i ce,and Li pez, Ci r cui t J udge.

Thomas R. Landr y, wi t h whom Kr akow & Sour i s LLC was on br i ef ,f or appel l ant s.

Mark J . Vent ol a, wi t h whomDavi d L. Hansen and Sheehan Phi nney

* Hon. Davi d H. Sout er , Associ at e J ust i ce ( Ret . ) of t heSupr eme Cour t of t he Uni t ed St at es, si t t i ng by desi gnat i on.


2/26

Bass + Gr een wer e on br i ef , f or appel l ee.

J ul y 31, 2015


3/26

- 3 -

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge. Pl ai nt i f f s - Appel l ant s , t he

t r ust ees f or a gr oup of uni on- r el at ed benef i t s f unds and t hei r

col l ect i on agency, 1 f i l ed t hi s act i on agai nst Def endant - Appel l ee

Labont e Dr ywal l Company ( "Labont e Dr ywal l " ) seeki ng enf orcement of

an agr eement t hat r equi r ed t he company t o al l ow an audi t of i t s

r ecor ds. Af t er a one- day bench t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t f ound

t hat Labont e Dr ywal l had t ermi nated t he pert i nent agr eement , and,

hence, pl ai nt i f f s had no l egal r i ght t o conduct t he r equest ed

audi t . We af f i r m.

I.

We set f or t h t he f act s based on t he r ecor d and f i ndi ngs

of t he di st r i ct cour t . See McDer mot t v. Marcus, Er r i co, Emmer &

Br ooks, P. C. , 775 F. 3d 109, 113 ( 1st Ci r . 2014) . Labont e Dr ywal l

was a New Hampshi r e cor por at i on engaged i n commerci al drywal l work

unt i l May 2007, when i t conver t ed t o a l i mi t ed l i abi l i t y company.

Cl er mont Labont e i s, and was at al l r el evant t i mes, t he sol e member

and owner of Labont e Dr ywal l .

On J anuary 31, 1996, Labont e, on behal f of Labont e

Dr ywal l , si gned a st at ewi de agr eement wi t h l ocal Massachuset t s

uni ons af f i l i at ed wi t h t he Uni t ed Br ot her hood of Car pent er s and

1 The t r ustee pl ai nt i f f s , i dent i f i ed i n t he capt i on of t hi scase, have desi gnated pl ai nt i f f New Engl and Car pent er s Cent r alCol l ect i on Agency ( t he "Agency") t o col l ect al l moni es owed t o t hef unds by empl oyers.


4/26

- 4 -

J oi ner s of Amer i ca ( col l ect i vel y r ef er r ed t o as t he "Uni on") . 2 The

agr eement al l owed Labont e Dr ywal l t o hi r e Uni on car pent er s f or i t s

busi ness . Par agr aph 1 of t he st at ewi de agr eement pr ovi ded t hat :

" [ Labont e Dr ywal l ] accept s and agr ees t o abi de by t he col l ect i ve

bar gai ni ng agr eement s bet ween t he var i ous cont r act or associ at i ons

and t he [ Uni on] wher ever t hose cont r act s shal l appl y. [ Labont e

Dr ywal l ] agr ees t hat i t shal l abi de by any amendment s or successor

agr eement s negot i at ed by t he cont r act or associ at i ons and t he

[ Uni on] . " 3 The agr eement added t hat i t s dur at i on "shal l be co-

ext ensi ve wi t h t he t er ms set out i n t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement s r ef er r ed t o i n par agr aph 1 unl ess ei t her par t y to t hi s

st at ewi de agr eement gi ves not i ce of t er mi nat i on of t hi s agr eement

i n accor dance wi t h t he appl i cabl e not i ce pr ovi si ons i n t he

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement r ef er r ed t o i n par agr aph 1. "

2 The l ocal Massachuset t s uni ons are member s of t he NewEngl and Regi onal Counci l of Car pent er s, whi ch r epr esent scar pent er s uni ons i n Connect i cut , Mai ne, Massachuset t s, NewHampshi r e, Rhode I sl and, and Vermont . The New Engl and Regi onalCounci l of Car pent er s, i n t ur n, i s a par t of t he nat i onal Uni t ed

Br ot her hood of Car pent er s and J oi ner s of Amer i ca.

3 The "var i ous cont r act or associ at i ons" whi ch ar e par t i es t ot he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement at i ssue i n t hi s appeal i ncl udet he Labor Rel at i ons Di vi si on of t he Associ at ed Gener al Cont r act or sof Massachuset t s, I nc. , t he Bui l di ng Tr ades Empl oyer s' Associ at i onof Bost on and East er n Massachuset t s, I nc. , and t he Labor Rel at i onsDi vi si on of t he Const r uct i on I ndust r i es of Massachuset t s.


5/26

- 5 -

Ar t i cl e 31 of t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement i n

ef f ect f r omSept ember 1, 2005 t hr ough August 31, 2009, pr ovi ded as

f ol l ows:

Thi s agr eement wi l l expi r e on August 31, 2009except t hat i f nei t her par t y t o thi s Agr eementgi ves not i ce i n wr i t i ng t o t he ot her par t y onor bef or e J ul y 1, 2009 t hat i t desi r es a changeaf t er August 31, 2009, t hen t hi s Agr eementwi l l cont i nue i n ef f ect unt i l August 31, 2010and so on each year t hereaf t er unl ess on orbef or e J ul y 1 of each year t her eaf t er , anot i ce i s gi ven by ei t her par t y.

The col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement r equi r ed empl oyers

t o make cont r i but i ons t o var i ous pensi on, annui t y, heal t h

benef i t s, vacat i on, and t r ai ni ng f unds i n accor dance wi t h i t s

t erms. The f unds are "empl oyee pensi on benef i t pl ans" and

"empl oyee wel f ar e benef i t pl ans" wi t hi n t he meani ng of 3( 1) and

( 2) of t he Empl oyee Ret i r ement I ncome Secur i t y Act ( "ERI SA") , 29

U. S. C. 1002( 1) and ( 2) . The cont r i but i ons t o t he f unds wer e t o

be made on a weekl y basi s on behal f of al l empl oyees cover ed by

t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . The col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement al so r equi r ed empl oyers t o compl y wi t h t he t erms of t he

t r ust agr eement s f or each f und. The t r ust agr eement s per mi t t ed

t he t r ust ees, or t hei r aut hor i zed r epr esent at i ves, t o audi t t he

per t i nent payrol l r ecor ds of any empl oyer whenever such audi t i s

deemed necessar y by the t r ust ees.


6/26

- 6 -

Empl oyer s are gener al l y audi t ed on a t hr ee- year audi t

cycl e. The audi t s ar e overseen by t he Agency, whi ch conduct s

appr oxi matel y 150 t o 200 audi t s per year . The pur pose of t he

audi t s i s t o determi ne, among other t hi ngs, whether any cover ed

empl oyees have worked hour s f or whi ch cont r i but i ons t o the f unds

have not been remi t t ed.

I n J anuar y 2007, t he Agency not i f i ed Labont e Dr ywal l by

l et t er t hat an audi t woul d be conduct ed f or t he per i od f r omJ anuar y

1, 2004 t hr ough t he end of 2006 ( t he "2007 audi t " ) . Leo Donohue,

a payrol l audi t or f or t he Agency, conduct ed t he audi t . Dany

Labont e, t he son of owner Cl ermont , was aut hor i zed t o act as

Labont e Dr ywal l ' s agent when r espondi ng t o audi t r equest s. Labont e

Dr ywal l pr ovi ded mat er i al s r equest ed dur i ng t he audi t . However ,

i n a l et t er dated Apr i l 3, 2007, Dany Labont e i nf ormed Donohue

t hat "Labont e Dr ywal l has not had work or done work i n t he uni on

now si nce December of 2005. The l ast j ob we di d was Manchest er

Pl ace f or Mor i ar t y i n Manchest er , NH. We l ost so much money agai n

on another uni on j ob t hat we ar e no l onger bi ddi ng or doi ng any

more uni on work. " The l et t er was addressed t o Donohue and

cont ai ned Dany Labont e' s name i n type, but wi t hout a cor r espondi ng

si gnat ur e. At t r i al , Donohue di d not r ecal l r ecei vi ng t he Apr i l

3, 2007 l et t er .


7/26

- 7 -

At t he concl usi on of t he 2007 audi t , Donohue pr epared a

r epor t cl ai mi ng t hat Labont e Dr ywal l had under r epor t ed a tot al of

24 hours of work by 38 empl oyees i n 2004, 4, 765 hours of work by

74 empl oyees i n 2005, and 40 hour s of wor k by one empl oyee i n 2006.

Ther e was no evi dence i n t he r ecor d t hat any st eps wer e t aken by

t he Agency t o enf or ce t he col l ect i on of payment s on the

under r eport ed hour s.

I n Febr uary 2010, t he Agency i nf ormed Labont e Dr ywal l

t hat an audi t woul d be conduct ed f or t he per i od f r om J anuar y 1,

2007 t hrough December 31, 2009 ( t he "2010 audi t " ) . Two mont hs

l at er , i n Apr i l , t he Agency' s counsel , Chr i st opher Sour i s, sent

Cl ermont Labont e a l et t er demandi ng that Labont e Dr ywal l cooperate

wi t h t he 2010 audi t . The same day, Sour i s, on behal f of t he Uni on,

sent Cl er mont a second l et t er , st at i ng t hat Labont e Dr ywal l " i s

oper at i ng nonuni on compani es" i n vi ol at i on of t he col l ect i ve

bar gai ni ng agr eement . That l et t er encl osed a quest i onnai r e aski ng

f or 79 cat egor i es of i nf or mat i on cover i ng a si x- year per i od, f r om

J anuar y 1, 2004 t hrough Apr i l 6, 2010. I n par t i cul ar , t he Uni on

expr essed concern t hat Labont e Dr ywal l was per f ormi ng payr ol l

ser vi ces f or ot her dr ywal l compani es, i ncl udi ng C- D- Bee Dr ywal l ,

LLC, and Pr ogr ess Dr ywal l , LLC.

I n an e- mai l dat ed J ul y 1, 2010, Labont e Dr ywal l ' s

counsel Di ana Wi el and i nf or med Sour i s t hat , whi l e Labont e Dr ywal l


8/26

- 8 -

woul d pr ovi de t he i nf or mat i on r equest ed i n t he quest i onnai r e, t he

company bel i eved t hat i t had no exi st i ng bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p

wi t h t he Uni on. Wi el and f ol l owed up wi t h a l et t er t o Sour i s

r espondi ng t o t he quest i onnai r e. The l et t er r epeat ed Labont e

Dr ywal l ' s cl ai mt hat i t had ceased per f or mi ng dr ywal l i nst al l at i on

work i n December 2005 and t hat t he f unds were aware t hat Labont e

Dr ywal l "no l onger has a bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p wi t h t he Uni on. "

Mor e t han a year l at er , i n a l et t er dat ed August 31,

2011, t he Agency expanded t he 2010 audi t r equest and asked Labont e

Dr ywal l t o pr oduce i t s payrol l r ecor ds t hr ough t he dat e of t he

l et t er . Labont e Dr ywal l di d not r espond t o ei t her t he 2010 or

2011 audi t r equest s.

Pl ai nt i f f s subsequent l y f i l ed t hi s acti on i n t he

di st r i ct cour t under ERI SA and t he Labor Management Rel at i ons Act

( "LMRA") , 29 U. S. C. 141- 87, seeki ng t o enf or ce Labont e Dr ywal l ' s

compl i ance wi t h an audi t of i t s payrol l and empl oyment r ecor ds f or

t he per i od J anuar y 1, 2007 t hr ough August 31, 2011. Af t er hol di ng

a one- day bench t r i al , t he di st r i ct cour t f ound i n f avor of Labont e

Dr ywal l . See New Eng. Car pent er s Cent . Col l ect i on Agency v.

Labont e Dr ywal l Co. , No. 12- 10734- RGS, 2014 WL 2566136, at *5 ( D.

Mass. J une 5, 2014) . The cour t cr edi t ed Dany Labont e' s t est i mony

t hat " t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er t o Donohue was mai l ed and was

i nt ended as a wr i t t en t er mi nat i on of t he [ agr eement ] bet ween the


9/26

- 9 -

Uni on and Labont e [ Dr ywal l ] . " I d. at *4. The cour t st at ed t hat

"Dany Labont e' s l ayman' s choi ce of wor ds [ i n t he l et t er ] was

suf f i ci ent l y cl ear t o r equi r e, at l east , some r esponsi ve i nqui r y

f r omt he Uni on or t he [ f ] unds. However , not hi ng ensued f r omei t her

ent i t y on t he subj ect . " I d. Al t hough t he l et t er was di r ect ed t o

Agency empl oyee Donohue, t he di st r i ct cour t r ul ed t hat t he Uni on

had act ual not i ce of t he l et t er . See i d. Because t he col l ect i ve

bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p had been t er mi nat ed, t he cour t concl uded

t hat "pl ai nt i f f s had no l egal r i ght t o conduct an audi t of Labont e

[ Dr ywal l ] ' s payr ol l f or t he per i od f r om J anuar y 1, 2007, t hr ough

August 31, 2011. " I d. at *5. J udgment ent er ed f or Labont e

Dr ywal l , and pl ai nt i f f s t i mel y appeal ed.

II.

Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he di st r i ct cour t er r ed when i t

concl uded t hat ( 1) t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er t er mi nat ed t he

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p bet ween Labont e Dr ywal l and t he

Uni on, and ( 2) pl ai nt i f f s wer e not ent i t l ed t o audi t Labont e

Dr ywal l ' s r ecor ds, at l east t hr ough August 31, 2009.

We r evi ew t he di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ngs of f act f or cl ear

er r or and i t s concl usi ons of l aw de novo. See Wal gr een Co. v.

Rul l an, 405 F. 3d 50, 55 ( 1st Ci r . 2005) . A f act ual f i ndi ng i s

"cl ear l y er r oneous" onl y i f , "on t he whol e of t he r ecor d, we f or m

a st r ong, unyi el di ng bel i ef t hat a mi st ake has been made. "


10/26

- 10 -

Cumpi ano v. Banco Sant ander Puer t o Ri co, 902 F. 2d 148, 152 ( 1st

Ci r . 1990) ; see al so Uni t ed St at es v. 15 Boswor t h St . , 236 F. 3d

50, 53 ( 1st Ci r . 2001) ( "[ T] he cour t ' s f actual f i ndi ngs ar e

ent i t l ed t o consi der abl e def er ence. ") .

Pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument s r equi r e us t o i nt er pr et t he t er ms

of t he st at ewi de agr eement and t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement . Under t he LMRA, " [ i ] nt er pr et at i on of l abor cont r act s

. . . i s a mat t er of f eder al common l aw. " Seni or v. NSTAR El ec.

& Gas Corp. , 449 F. 3d 206, 216 ( 1st Ci r . 2006) ; see al so Sweeney

v. West vaco Co. , 926 F. 2d 29, 36 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( not i ng t hat

" f eder al common l aw . . . appl i es t o di sput es ar i si ng out of

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement s") . " [ A] cour t shoul d r esor t t o

t r adi t i onal pr i nci pl es of cont r act i nt er pr et at i on t o t he ext ent

such pr i nci pl es ar e consi st ent wi t h f eder al l abor l aw. " Seni or ,

449 F. 3d at 216; see al so Di st . Lodge 26, I nt ' l Ass' n of Machi ni st s

& Aerospace Worker s, AFL- CI O v. Uni t ed Techs. Corp. , 610 F. 3d 44,

51 ( 2d Ci r . 2010) ( "Whi l e i t i s t r ue t hat t r adi t i onal cont r act

r ul es do not al ways r i gi dl y appl y t o col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement s, cour t s must l ook t o t r adi t i onal st at e cont r act l aw,

when i t i s not i nconsi st ent wi t h f eder al l abor pol i cy, t o f or mt he

cont ent of t he f ederal common l aw governi ng l abor agr eement s. "

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) .


11/26

- 11 -

A. The April 3, 2007 Letter

Pur suant t o the st at ewi de agr eement ' s t er mi nat i on

pr ovi si on, Labont e Dr ywal l was r equi r ed t o "gi ve[ ] not i ce of

t er mi nat i on of t hi s agr eement i n accor dance wi t h t he appl i cabl e

not i ce pr ovi si ons i n t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . " The

not i ce pr ovi si on of t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement i n ef f ect

f r om Sept ember 1, 2005 t hr ough August 31, 2009 r equi r ed t hat

"ei t her par t y t o t hi s Agr eement gi ve[ ] not i ce i n wr i t i ng t o t he

ot her par t y" t o t er mi nat e t he agr eement . Ther ef or e, t o t er mi nat e

i t s st atewi de agr eement wi t h t he Uni on, Labont e Dr ywal l was

r equi r ed t o pr ovi de a "not i ce of t er mi nat i on" "i n wr i t i ng t o t he

ot her par t y. "

Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er coul d

not have t ermi nat ed t he st atewi de agr eement because i t was not a

"not i ce of t er mi nat i on" and was not pr ovi ded t o " t he ot her par t y. "

We addr ess each i ssue i n t ur n.

1. Notice of Termination

A par t y' s " st at ed i nt ent t o wi t hdr aw f r om [ a col l ect i ve

bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p] i s ef f ecti ve onl y i f i t i s bot h t i mel y

and unequi vocal . "4

Haas El ec. , I nc. v. NLRB, 299 F. 3d 23, 27 ( 1st

4 Rel yi ng on cases f r om t he Si xt h Ci r cui t , pl ai nt i f f s cont endt hat a not i ce of t ermi nat i on must be "cl ear and unambi guous" t o beef f ect i ve. Pl s . ' Br . at 25 ( ci t i ng Of f i ce & Prof ' l Emp. I nt ' lUni on, Local 42, AFL- CI O v. Uni t ed Aut o. , Aer ospace & Agr .I mpl ement Workers of Am. , West si de Local No. 174, UAW, 524 F. 2d


12/26

- 12 -

Ci r . 2002) ( St ahl , J . , concur r i ng) ( ci t i ng Ret ai l Assocs. , I nc. ,

120 N. L. R. B. 388, 393- 95 ( 1958) ) . "The deci si on t o wi t hdr aw must

cont empl ate a si ncere abandonment , wi t h r el at i ve permanency, of

t he mul t i empl oyer uni t . " See Ret ai l Assocs. , I nc. , 120 N. L. R. B.

at 394.

Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er di d not

communi cate an unequi vocal i nt ent t o t ermi nate Labont e Dr ywal l ' s

agr eement wi t h t he Uni on because i t "makes no ment i on of

' t er mi nat i on' and does not ment i on ei t her t he [ s] t at e[ w] i de

[ a] gr eement or t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . " Pl s. ' Br . at

28.

Pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument i mpl i cat es t wo l egal quest i ons.

The f i r st quest i on i s whet her t he t er ms of t he st at ewi de agr eement

r equi r ed Labont e Dr ywal l t o use any par t i cul ar l anguage i n i t s

not i ce of t er mi nat i on. See Of f i ceMax, I nc. v. Levesque, 658 F. 3d

94, 97 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( "Cont r act i nt er pr et at i on, when based on

cont r act ual l anguage wi t hout r esor t t o ext r i nsi c evi dence, i s a

1316, 1317 ( 6t h Ci r . 1975) ; I nt ' l Uni on of Oper at i ng Eng' r s, LocalNo. 181 v. Dahl emConst r . Co. , 193 F. 2d 470, 475 ( 6t h Ci r . 1951) ) .

Yet , pl ai nt i f f s never expl ai n how t hi s "cl ear and unambi guous"st andar d i s di f f er ent f r om t he " t i mel y and unequi vocal " s t andar dt hat t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Boar d ar t i cul at ed i n Ret ai lAssocs. , I nc. , 120 N. L. R. B. at 393, whi ch we appl i ed i n Haas El ec. ,I nc. See 299 F. 3d at 27 ( St ahl , J . , concur r i ng) ; i d. at 36( Tor r uel l a, J . , di ssent i ng) . To t he ext ent t her e i s a di f f er encebetween t he l egal st andards, we are bound by t he " t i mel y andunequi vocal " st andar d.


13/26

- 13 -

' quest i on of l aw' t hat i s revi ewed de novo. " ) . The second quest i on

i s whet her Labont e Dr ywal l ' s l et t er expr essed an unequi vocal

i nt ent t o wi t hdr aw f r om t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p so

as t o be a l egal l y ef f ect i ve t er mi nat i on. 5 See, e. g. , Uni v.

Emergency Med. Found. v. Rapi er I nvest ment s, Lt d. , 197 F. 3d 18, 20

( 1st Ci r . 1999) . We addr ess each i n t ur n.

a. What the Termination Provision Requires

Regar di ng t he f i r st quest i on, we agr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s concl usi on t hat t he st at ewi de agr eement ' s t er mi nat i on

pr ovi si on "does not r equi r e any speci f i c t er mi nol ogy t o be

ef f ect i ve. " Labont e Dr ywal l Co. , 2014 WL 2566136, at *4. Not hi ng

i n t he f our cor ner s of t he st at ewi de agr eement r equi r es a par t y' s

not i ce of t er mi nat i on t o expl i ci t l y i ncl ude t he wor ds

"t er mi nat i on, " " st at ewi de agr eement , " or " col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement . " The t er mi nat i on pr ovi si on si mpl y r equi r es a "not i ce

of t er mi nat i on" i n wr i t i ng. See I TT Cor p. v. LTX Cor p. , 926 F. 2d

1258, 1265 ( 1st Ci r . 1991) ( r ej ect i ng par t y' s at t empt t o i nser t

condi t i on i nt o agr eement "si nce no such cl ause or st at ement appear s

wi t hi n t he cont r act ' s f our cor ner s") .

5 Al t hough a par t y' s st at ed i nt ent t o t er mi nat e i t sobl i gat i ons under a col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement must be bot h"t i mel y and unequi vocal , " Haas El ec. , I nc. , 299 F. 3d at 27 ( St ahl ,J . , concur r i ng) , t he par t i es do not di sput e t hat t he l et t er wast i mel y.


14/26

- 14 -

b. Labonte Drywall's Stated Intent to Withdraw

Regardi ng t he second quest i on, we al so agr ee wi t h t he

di st r i ct cour t ' s det er mi nat i on t hat t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er

expr essed an unequi vocal i nt ent t o t er mi nat e Labont e Dr ywal l ' s

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p wi t h t he Uni on. See Labont e

Dr ywal l Co. , 2014 WL 2566136, at *4.

The Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er cl ear l y st at es t hat "Labont e

Dr ywal l has not . . . done work i n the uni on now si nce December of

2005" and i s " no l onger bi ddi ng or doi ng any more uni on work. "

The l et t er , on i t s f ace, cont ai ned no l anguage suggest i ng t hat

Labont e Dr ywal l was equi vocal i n i t s desi r e t o no l onger wor k wi t h

t he Uni on. See Haas El ec. , I nc. , 299 F. 3d at 29 ( St ahl , J . ,

concur r i ng) ( f i ndi ng t hat empl oyer ' s l et t er expr essed an

unequi vocal i nt ent t o ter mi nat e col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p

even t hough i t "admi t t edl y di d not use pr eci se l anguage i n

ar t i cul at i ng i t s i nt ent t o wi t hdr aw") ; cf . Loui si ana Br i ckl ayer s

& Trowel Trades Pensi on Fund & Wel f are Fund v. Al f r ed Mi l l er Gen.

Masonr y Cont r act i ng Co. , 157 F. 3d 404, 409 n. 12 ( 5t h Ci r . 1998)

( f i ndi ng t er mi nat i on l et t er i nef f ect i ve when i t "equi vocat ed by

agr eei ng t o abi de by t he t er ms of t he [ col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement ] ' f or t he i mmedi at e f ut ur e. ' " ) . Mor eover , t he

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement i n ef f ect f r om 2005 t o 2009

pr ovi ded t hat al l workers hi r ed by an empl oyer , who worked more


15/26

- 15 -

t han seven days, had t o become ( or seek t o become) member s of t he

Uni on, as l ong as t he empl oyer was engaged i n t he ki nd of work

cover ed by t hi s agr eement . Si nce t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement , by i t s t er ms, does not al l ow an empl oyer t o per f or m

dr ywal l wor k wi t hout hi r i ng Uni on wor ker s, t he l et t er ' s st at ement

t hat Labont e Dr ywal l was "no l onger bi ddi ng or doi ng any more uni on

wor k" cl ear l y i ndi cat ed i t s i nt ent t o t er mi nat e t he ongoi ng

r el at i onshi p wi t h t he Uni on.

The part i es' conduct af t er Dany Labont e sent t he Apr i l

3, 2007 l et t er conf i r ms t hat t hey under st ood t hat t he l et t er had

t er mi nat ed t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p bet ween Labont e

Dr ywal l and t he Uni on. Cf . Haas El ec. , 299 F. 3d at 29 ( St ahl , J . ,

concur r i ng) ( f i ndi ng t hat empl oyer ' s l et t er t o uni on t er mi nat ed

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p wher e t he uni on di d not

"quest i on[ ] t he meani ng of t he l et t er " at t he t i me and t he

empl oyer ' s subsequent conduct was consi st ent wi t h i t s "st at ed

i nt ent t o wi t hdr aw") . Labont e Dr ywal l l ast empl oyed Uni on wor ker s

i n December 2005, and t here i s no evi dence i n t he recor d t hat t he

company sol i ci t ed Uni on work or per f ormed any ot her Uni on- r el ated

act i vi t y af t er t hat t i me. I mpor t ant l y, bet ween t he end of 2007

and t he begi nni ng of 2010, Uni on r epr esent at i ves vi si t ed Labont e

Dr ywal l mul t i pl e t i mes t o request t hat t he company r ej oi n t he

Uni on. Besi des t hese vi si t s, Labont e Dr ywal l r ecei ved no


16/26

- 16 -

communi cat i on f r omt he Uni on or t he Agency unt i l t he Febr uary 2010

l et t er r equest i ng an audi t of Labont e Dr ywal l ' s r ecor ds. Labont e

Dr ywal l was no l onger r ecei vi ng copi es of t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement s f r om t he Uni on. Labont e Dr ywal l al so had st opped

r ecei vi ng copi es of t he Uni on' s wage and benef i t packages. The

Uni on' s di r ect or of cont r act or r el at i ons t est i f i ed t hat t he Agency

"st op[ s] sendi ng t hese wage and benef i t packages t o si gnat or y

empl oyers i f t hey are no l onger members of t he Uni on" and "had

t er mi nat ed" t hei r col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p wi t h t he

Uni on. I n shor t , t he par t i es' act i ons demonst r at e t hat bot h

under st ood t hat t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er had ended t hei r agr eement .

2. Notice to the Other Party

Pl ai nt i f f s al so ar gue t hat t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er was

not a val i d ter mi nat i on because Labont e Dr ywal l di d not send t he

l et t er t o t he Uni on, whi ch i s " t he ot her par t y" t o t he st at ewi de

agr eement . Dany Labont e sent t he l et t er t o Donohue, an empl oyee

of t he Agency, not t he Uni on. Pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t he Uni on

and t he Agency ar e separate l egal ent i t i es, and t hat Donohue was

not a de f act o agent of t he Uni on. Thus, t hey i nsi st t hat Labont e

Dr ywal l di d not pr ovi de not i ce of t er mi nat i on t o the Uni on.

Labont e Dr ywal l does not cont est t hat t he Uni on and t he

Agency ar e separ at e ent i t i es as a mat t er of l aw. Nor does i t ar gue

t hat Donohue was an agent f or t he Uni on. I nst ead, Labont e Dr ywal l


17/26

- 17 -

cont ends, and t he di st r i ct cour t f ound, t hat t he Uni on r ecei ved

act ual not i ce of Labont e Dr ywal l ' s t er mi nat i on of t he col l ect i ve

bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p. See Labont e Dr ywal l Co. , 2014 WL 2566136,

at *4.

The di st r i ct cour t ' s f i ndi ng i mpl i cat es bot h l egal and

f act ual quest i ons. The l egal quest i on, whi ch we r evi ew de novo,

i s whet her actual not i ce i s suf f i ci ent t o t er mi nat e t he col l ect i ve

bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p under t he t er ms of t he st at ewi de

agr eement . The f act ual quest i on, whi ch we r evi ew f or cl ear er r or ,

i s whet her t he Uni on r ecei ved act ual not i ce of t he Apr i l 3, 2007

l et t er . We addr ess each i n t ur n.

a. Whether Actual Notice Is Sufficient

Al t hough t he st at ewi de agr eement ' s t er mi nat i on pr ovi si on

st at es t hat wr i t t en not i ce shoul d be gi ven " t o t he ot her par t y, "

t he agr eement must be read "i n a r easonabl e and pr act i cal way,

consi st ent wi t h i t s l anguage, backgr ound, and pur pose. " Bukur as

v. Muel l er Gr p. , LLC, 592 F. 3d 255, 262 ( 1st Ci r . 2010) ( i nt er nal

quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . The pr i mar y pur pose of t he t er mi nat i on

pr ovi si on i s t o ensur e t hat " t he ot her par t y" t o t he agr eement

r ecei ves t he not i ce of t er mi nat i on i n a t i mel y f ashi on. Act ual

not i ce t hat i s t i mel y achi eves t hat pur pose. See I n r e Redondo

Const r . Cor p. , 678 F. 3d 115, 123 ( 1st Ci r . 2012) ( "[ S] t r i ct

conf or mi t y wi t h a cont r act ' s wr i t t en not i ce pr ovi si on i s not


18/26

- 18 -

r equi r ed as l ong as t he count er par t y recei ves subst ant i al l y the

same i nf or mat i on t hr ough t i mel y act ual not i ce and suf f er s no

pr ej udi ce f r om t he non- conf or mi t y. " ( emphasi s added) ) ; Uni v.

Emer gency Med. Found. v. Rapi er I nvest ment s, Lt d. , No. CI V. A. 97-

549- T, 1998 WL 34100601, at *2 ( D. R. I . Oct . 16, 1998) af f ' d, 197

F. 3d 18 ( 1st Ci r . 1999) ( "Even wher e a cont r act r equi r es a

par t i cul ar met hod of gi vi ng not i ce, not i ce gi ven by a di f f er ent

met hod i s ef f ect i ve i f i t i s act ual l y recei ved unl ess t he met hod

by whi ch not i ce i s gi ven i s an essent i al el ement of t he

t r ansacti on. " ( ci t i ng 1 Maur i ce H. Mer r i l l , Mer r i l l on Not i ce

603, at 66263 ( 1952) ) ( emphasi s added) ) ; see al so Uni v.

Emer gency Med. Found. , 197 F. 3d at 22 ( f i ndi ng termi nat i on not i ce

val i d al t hough par t y f ai l ed t o st r i ct l y compl y wi t h not i ce

pr ovi si on because t hat pr ovi si on di d not "i t sel f , conf er any

benef i t upon ei t her par t y" and was "mer el y a col l at er al t er m

i nt ended t o enhance t he pr obabi l i t y t hat mai l ed not i ce wi l l ar r i ve

pr ompt l y i n t he pr oper hands" ) . 6

6 Cour t s have consi st ent l y f ound t er mi nat i on not i ces val i dwhen t he ot her par t y act ual l y recei ved t he not i ce i n a t i mel yf ashi on. See, e. g. , Uni v. Emer gency Med. Found. , 197 F. 3d at 22;

( not i ng t hat a "mai l ed t er mi nat i on not i ce i s val i d so l ong as i ti s act ual l y recei ved by t he not i cee, even wher e i t i s mai l ed t o ani ncor r ect addr ess" ( emphasi s added) ) ; Mason Tenders Di st . Counci lWel f ar e Fund v. Al l Uni on, I nc. , No. 01 CI V. 0152( AGS) , 2002 WL31115181, at *4 ( S. D. N. Y. Sept . 23, 2002) ( f i ndi ng t er mi nat i onl et t er val i d because evi dence "shows t hat t he Uni on act ual l yr ecei ved the [ l et t er ] " even though i t may not have been sent bycer t i f i ed mai l i n accor dance wi t h t he t er ms of t he col l ect i ve


19/26

- 19 -

I n t hi s case, pl ai nt i f f s make no ar gument t hat act ual

not i ce, i f r ecei ved by t he Uni on, woul d be unt i mel y, pr ej udi ci al ,

or somehow undermi ne an essent i al el ement of Labont e Dr ywal l ' s

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p wi t h t he Uni on. We, t her ef or e,

hol d t hat i f t he Uni on r ecei ved act ual not i ce of t he Apr i l 3, 2007

l et t er , Labont e Dr ywal l ' s t er mi nat i on of t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

r el at i onshi p woul d be val i d.

b. Whether the Union Received Actual Notice

At t r i al , pl ai nt i f f s ar gued t hat t he Agency and t he Uni on

"oper at ed as whol l y separ at e ent i t i es, " and, t her ef or e, a not i ce

sent t o Donohue woul d not be r ecei ved by t he Uni on. Labont e

Dr ywal l Co. , 2014 WL 2566136, at *4. However , t he di st r i ct cour t

di d not f i nd t hi s bl anket asser t i on credi bl e as a descr i pt i on of

t hei r communi cat i ons r egardi ng Labont e Dr ywal l , i n par t because

"t he same at t or ney ( Sour i s) r epr esent ed bot h ent i t i es and pur sued

t hei r i nt er est s" t oget her i n t hei r deal i ngs wi t h Labont e Dr ywal l .

I d. For exampl e, t he r ecor d demonst r ates t hat , on t he same day i n

Apr i l 2010, At t or ney Sour i s sent Labont e Dr ywal l t wo l et t er s: one

on behal f of t he Agency request i ng compl i ance wi t h t he 2010 audi t ,

bar gai ni ng agr eement ( emphasi s added) ) ; U. S. Br oad. Co. v.Nat i onal Br oad. Co. , 439 F. Supp. 8, 10 ( D. Mass. 1977) ( f i ndi ngt er mi nat i on not i ces val i d because "i t woul d be hyper t echni cal i nt he ext r eme t o hol d t hat not i ce act ual l y recei ved was i nef f ect i ve"wher e "i t i s cl ear t hat pl ai nt i f f and pl ai nt i f f ' s counsel t i mel yr ecei ved bot h not i ces" ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed)( emphasi s added) ) .


20/26

- 20 -

and another on behal f of t he Uni on r equest i ng compl i ance wi t h t he

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . These seemi ngl y concer t ed

act i ons, t hr ough t he same at t or ney, i ndi cat e t hat t her e was act ual

communi cat i on bet ween the Uni on and Agency about Labont e Dr ywal l .

As t he di st r i ct cour t r easonabl y concl uded, t he pl ai nt i f f s'

r ebut t al - - t hat t he Agency and Uni on were oper at i ng as whol l y

separ at e ent i t i es - - was not credi bl e i n l i ght of t hei r cooper at i on

on mat t er s i nvol vi ng Labont e Dr ywal l .

Mor eover , t he cour t credi t ed pl ai nt i f f s' t est i mony t hat

" t he Uni on i s i n regul ar communi cat i on wi t h t he Agency r egar di ng

t he st at us of empl oyer s who ar e no l onger act i ve i n t he Uni on or

who r equest t o t er mi nat e t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p. "

I d. at *4 n. 6. The r ecor d demonst r at es t hat t he Uni on and t he

Agency regul ar l y communi cat e when "an empl oyer i s r emoved f r omt he

l i st " of si gnat or y empl oyer s and i s "no l onger act i ve" wi t h t he

Uni on, whi ch suppor t s t he di st r i ct cour t ' s r easonabl e i nf er ence

t hat t he two ent i t i es communi cated r egar di ng Labont e Dr ywal l ' s

not i ce of t er mi nat i on.

The Uni on' s act i ons af t er t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er was

sent al so demonst r at e t hat t he Uni on r ecei ved Labont e Dr ywal l ' s

not i ce of t er mi nat i on. As expl ai ned above, besi des vi si t s f r om

Uni on r epr esent at i ves aski ng Labont e Dr ywal l t o r ej oi n t he Uni on,

Labont e Dr ywal l r ecei ved no communi cat i on f r om t he Uni on or t he


21/26

- 21 -

Agency. The company no l onger r ecei ved copi es of t he col l ect i ve

bargai ni ng agr eement s or t he Uni on' s wage and benef i t packages.

We, t her ef or e, f i nd no cl ear er r or wi t h t he di st r i ct

cour t ' s f i ndi ng t hat t he Uni on - - "t he ot her par t y" t o t he

st at ewi de agr eement - - had act ual not i ce of Labont e Dr ywal l ' s Apr i l

3, 2007 t er mi nat i on l et t er . 7

B. Labonte Drywall's Audit Obligations

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat even i f t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er

di d t er mi nat e Labont e Dr ywal l ' s obl i gat i ons under t he col l ect i ve

bar gai ni ng agr eement , t hey ar e st i l l ent i t l ed t o audi t Labont e

Dr ywal l ' s r ecor ds t hr ough August 31, 2009. Thi s ar gument i s

pr emi sed on pl ai nt i f f s' bel i ef t hat , under t he col l ect i ve

bar gai ni ng agr eement , Labont e Dr ywal l ' s not i ce of t er mi nat i on was

not ef f ecti ve unt i l t hat dat e.

The t er mi nat i on provi si on of t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement i n ef f ect f r omSept ember 1, 2005 thr ough August 31, 2009,

7 Pl ai nt i f f s' r el i ance on Const r uct i on I ndust r y Labor er sPensi on Fund v. Auger s Unl i mi t ed, I nc. , No. 05- 4058- CV- C- NKL, 2006WL 1236063 ( W. D. Mo. May 4, 2006) , i s i napposi t e. I n AugersUnl i mi t ed, t he cour t hel d t hat an empl oyer ' s l et t er t o t er mi nat ei t s col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p wi t h t he uni on was not

ef f ect i ve because t he empl oyer had sent t he l et t er t o t r ust ees ofvar i ous empl oyee benef i t f unds and not t he uni on i t sel f . I d. at*6. I n so r ul i ng, t he cour t f ound t hat " t her e i s no evi dence t hat[ t he t r ust ees] not i f i ed t he [ u] ni on of t he t er mi nat i on l et t er " or"t hat t he [ u] ni on di d i n f act know of t he t er mi nat i on l et t er . "I d. at *1 n. 2, *6. As expl ai ned above, t her e i s ampl e evi dence i nt hi s case t hat t he Uni on knew of Labont e Dr ywal l ' s l et t er t ot er mi nat e i t s agr eement .


22/26

- 22 -

st at es: "Thi s agr eement wi l l expi r e on August 31, 2009 except

t hat i f nei t her par t y t o t hi s Agr eement gi ves not i ce i n wr i t i ng t o

t he ot her par t y on or bef or e J ul y 1, 2009 t hat i t desi r es a change

af t er August 31, 2009, t hen t hi s Agr eement wi l l cont i nue i n ef f ect

unt i l August 31, 2010 . . . . " Because t hi s pr ovi si on does not

permi t a part y t o t ermi nate t he agr eement bef ore August 31, 2009,

pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat Labont e Dr ywal l shoul d be bound by i t s

audi t obl i gat i ons t hr ough t hat dat e.

Labont e Dr ywal l count er s t hat t hi s t er mi nat i on pr ovi si on

does not appl y because Labont e Dr ywal l was not a si gnatory t o t he

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . The company onl y si gned i t s

st atewi de agr eement wi t h t he Uni on, and, Labont e Dr ywal l cont ends,

i t s t er mi nat i on of t he st at ewi de agr eement was ef f ect i ve on Apr i l

3, 2007. Revi ewi ng t hi s i ssue of cont r act i nt er pr et at i on de novo,

see Of f i ceMax, I nc. , 658 F. 3d at 97, we agr ee wi t h Labont e

Dr ywal l ' s under st andi ng of t he st at ewi de agr eement .

The t er mi nat i on provi si on of t he st at ewi de agr eement

st at es: "The dur at i on of t hi s st at ewi de agr eement shal l be co-

ext ensi ve wi t h t he t er ms set out i n t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng

agr eement s . . . unl ess ei t her par t y to t hi s st at ewi de agr eement

gi ves not i ce of t er mi nat i on of t hi s agr eement . . . . " ( emphasi s

added) . Theref ore, t he st atewi de agr eement woul d t ermi nate on

August 31, 2009 ( coextensi ve wi t h t he t er ms of t he col l ect i ve


23/26

- 23 -

bar gai ni ng agr eement ) unl ess ei t her par t y had gi ven not i ce of

t er mi nat i on. Labont e Dr ywal l gave not i ce of t er mi nat i on on Apr i l

3, 2007, and, t her ef or e, i t t er mi nat ed t he st at ewi de agr eement on

t hat dat e. Pl ai nt i f f s' cont ent i on t hat bot h t he st at ewi de

agr eement and t he col l ect i ve bargai ni ng agr eement di d not expi r e

unt i l August 31, 2009 woul d r ender t he "unl ess" cl ause of t he

st atewi de agr eement superf l uous and cont r avene t he wel l - r ecogni zed

"canon of const r uct i on t hat every word and phr ase of an i nst r ument

i s i f possi bl e t o be gi ven meani ng, and none i s t o be r ej ect ed as

sur pl usage i f any ot her cour se i s r at i onal l y possi bl e. "8 FDI C v.

8 Pl ai nt i f f s' r el i ance on Or r and v. Scassa Asphal t , I nc. i smi spl aced. See No. 14- 3954, 2015 WL 4430447 ( 6t h Ci r . J ul y 21,2015) . I n t hat case, t he appl i cabl e t er mi nat i on pr ovi si on st at edt hat t he par t i es' agr eement "shal l r emai n i n f ul l f or ce and ef f ect. . . unt i l expr essl y t er mi nat ed by not i ce i n wr i t i ng f r om onepar t y to t he ot her par t y at l east si xt y ( 60) days pr i or t o i t sanni ver sary dat e. " I d. at *1. The empl oyer ar gued t hat i t hadr ecei ved a not i ce l et t er f r omt he uni on t er mi nat i ng t he agr eement .I d. at *6. However , t he Si xt h Ci r cui t uphel d t he di st r i ct cour t ' sdet er mi nat i on const r ui ng t he l et t er as "a not i ce of cont r actmodi f i cat i on, not a not i ce of t er mi nat i on, because t he Uni onexpr essl y st at ed i t s ' desi r e t o modi f y, amend, and/ or negot i at e anew agr eement ' and ' t o open negot i at i ons f or a new agr eementcover i ng wages, hour s and condi t i ons of empl oyment . ' The l anguageof t he Uni on' s l et t er al so i ndi cat ed a desi r e on t he par t of t heUni on t o cont i nue t he r el at i onshi p bet ween t he par t i es, not t o

t er mi nat e i t . " I d. at *7 ( i nt er nal ci t at i on omi t t ed) . For t hi sr eason, t he cour t f ound t hat t he par t i es' col l ect i ve bar gai ni ngr el at i onshi p " r emai ned i n f or ce because nei t her t he Uni on nor [ t heempl oyer ] gave t i mel y wr i t t en not i ce t o t he ot her par t y of ani nt ent t o t er mi nat e. " I d. at *8. As demonst r at ed above, Labont eDr ywal l gave t i mel y wr i t t en not i ce of t er mi nat i on t o t he Uni ont hr ough t he Apr i l 3, 2007 l et t er .


24/26

- 24 -

Si ngh, 977 F. 2d 18, 22 ( 1st Ci r . 1992) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

Pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat i nt er pr et i ng t he st at ewi de

agr eement i n thi s way woul d permi t Labont e Dr ywal l " t o

spont aneousl y cancel t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement " i n

vi ol at i on of f eder al l abor l aw. Pl s. ' Br . at 31. Pur suant t o t he

Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Boar d' s deci si on i n J ohn Dekl ewa & Sons,

I nc. , pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat Labont e Dr ywal l was not f r ee t o

"uni l at er al l y repudi at e" i t s agr eement wi t h t he Uni on bef or e the

August 31, 2009 expi r at i on of t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement .

See 282 N. L. R. B. 1375, 1385 ( 1987) ; see al so C. E. K. I ndus. Mech.

Cont r act or s, I nc. v. NLRB, 921 F. 2d 350, 357 ( 1st Ci r . 1990)

( adopt i ng Dekl ewa "as t he l aw i n t hi s ci r cui t ") .

Assumi ng t hat Dekl ewa appl i es t o t he agr eement bet ween

Labont e Dr ywal l and t he Uni on, 9 pl ai nt i f f s' ar gument f ai l s because

9 The rul e i n Dekl ewa that empl oyer s cannot uni l at er al l yr epudi at e t hei r agr eement s wi t h uni ons appl i es onl y t o agr eement smade pur suant t o 8( f ) of t he Nat i onal Labor Rel at i ons Act . SeeDekl ewa, 282 N. L. R. B. at 1385 ( 1987) ( "Nei t her empl oyer s nor uni onswho ar e par t y to [ ] 8( f ) agr eement s wi l l be f r ee uni l at er al l y tor epudi at e such agr eement s. " ) . Al t hough " [ a] uni on must usual l ydemonst r ate maj or i t y suppor t among an empl oyer ' s empl oyees i n

or der t o ent er a col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement wi t h an empl oyer , "NLRB v. Goodl ess Br os. El ec. Co. , I nc. , 285 F. 3d 102, 104 ( 1stCi r . 2002) , 8( f ) agr eement s per mi t "uni ons and empl oyer s i n t heconst r uct i on i ndust r y [t o] ent er i nt o col l ect i ve bar gai ni ngagr eement s i n t he absence of a demonst r at i on of maj or i t yr epr esent at i on by t he uni on. " Haas El ec. , 299 F. 3d at 27 n. 3( St ahl , J . , concur r i ng) ( ci t i ng Goodl ess Br os. El ec. Co. , 285 F. 3dat 104- 05) . The par t i es do not di sput e t hat Labont e Dr ywal l


25/26

- 25 -

Labont e Dr ywal l di d not "uni l at er al l y r epudi at e" i t s obl i gat i ons

under t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . I nst ead, Labont e

Dr ywal l t er mi nat ed i t s col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng r el at i onshi p wi t h t he

Uni on pur suant t o t he agr eed- upon t er mi nat i on pr ovi si on of t he

st atewi de agr eement . The Uni on was a si gnatory t o t he st atewi de

agr eement and subj ect t o i t s t er ms and condi t i ons, whi ch pr ovi ded

Labont e Dr ywal l aut hor i t y t o t er mi nat e t he agr eement bef or e t he

col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement ' s August 31, 2009 expi r at i on dat e.

Ther ef or e, Labont e Dr ywal l ' s t er mi nat i on cannot be consi der ed

"uni l at eral . "

Because Labont e Dr ywal l ' s agr eement t o abi de by t he

t er ms and obl i gat i ons of t he col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement was

onl y i ncor por at ed by r ef er ence i n t he st atewi de agr eement , and

Labont e Dr ywal l ' s t ermi nat i on of t he st atewi de agr eement was

ef f ect i ve on Apr i l 3, 2007, t he company had no dut y t o submi t t o

pl ai nt i f f s' audi t r equest s t hr ough August 31, 2009. 10 Pl ai nt i f f s

ent er ed i nt o a 8( f ) agr eement wi t h t he Uni on, and we ther ef or eassume that t he st atut e covers Labont e Dr ywal l ' s agr eement wi t ht he Uni on.

10 Pl ai nt i f f s make no ar gument i n t hei r br i ef t hat Labont eDr ywal l must st i l l submi t t o an audi t r equest f or t he per i odbet ween J anuar y 1, 2007 t o Apr i l 3, 2007. We, t her ef ore, consi derany such argument wai ved. See Rodr guez v. Muni ci pal i t y of SanJ uan, 659 F. 3d 168, 175 ( 1st Ci r . 2011) ( " [ W] e deem wai ved cl ai msnot made or cl ai ms adver t ed t o i n a cursor y f ashi on, unaccompani edby devel oped argument . " ) .


26/26

- 26 -

"' ar e not ent i t l ed t o enf or ce a nonexi st ent cont r act ual

obl i gat i on. ' " 11 DeVi t o v. Hempst ead Chi na Shop, I nc. , 38 F. 3d 651,

654 ( 2d Ci r . 1994) ( quot i ng Teamst ers I ndus. Emps. Wel f are Fund v.

Rol l s- Royce Mot or Car s, I nc. , 989 F. 2d 132, 138 ( 3d Ci r . 1993) ) . 12

Af f i r med.

11As t hey di d i n t he di st r i ct cour t , pl ai nt i f f s devot e muchof t hei r br i ef i ng t o expl ai n t he i mpor t ant obl i gat i on t hat benef i tf unds have i n col l ect i ng cont r i but i ons f r omempl oyer s under ERI SA.However , as t he di st r i ct cour t st at ed, "[ n] one of t hi s . . . i s amat t er of di sput e. " Labont e Dr ywal l Co. , 2014 WL 2566136, at *4n. 4. Pl ai nt i f f s ar e not asser t i ng an ERI SA cont r i but i on cl ai magai nst Labont e Dr ywal l . I nst ead, pl ai nt i f f s cont end t hat t heyhave a r i ght t o conduct an audi t of Labont e Dr ywal l ' s r ecor ds, a

cont r actual obl i gat i on t hat i s der i ved f r om Labont e Dr ywal l ' sst at ewi de agr eement t o abi de by the t er ms of t he col l ect i vebargai ni ng agr eement .

12 Because we concl ude t hat Labont e Dr ywal l had no obl i gat i ont o submi t t o pl ai nt i f f s' audi t r equest s, we do not need t o r eacht he i ssue of whet her t he def ense of l aches i s avai l abl e t o Labont eDr ywal l i n t hi s acti on.

New England Carpenters Central v. Labonte Drywall Company, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)

Documents

Transcript of New England Carpenters Central v. Labonte Drywall Company, Inc., 1st Cir. (2015)