Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Shank/Balfour Beatty v. INTERN. BROTH., LOCAL 99, 06-2480 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 06-2480 Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 07, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: Shank/BB correctly argues that an affirmative claim for work, need not be explicit and that the actual performance of the work by, union-represented employees may be sufficient. See, e.g., Int'l, Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 62-B v. N.L.R.B.
          United States Court of Appeals
                      For the First Circuit

No. 06-2480

            SHANK/BALFOUR BEATTY, a Joint Venture of
  M. L. Shank, Co., Inc. and Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc.,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

        INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS
                 LOCAL 99, a/k/a IBEW LOCAL 99,

                       Defendant, Appellee.


                           ERRATA SHEET

     The opinion of this Court issued on August 6, 2007 is amended
as follows:

     Delete the text of footnote 4 on page 15 in its entirety and
replace it with the following:

     Shank/BB correctly argues that an affirmative claim for work
need not be explicit and that the actual performance of the work by
union-represented employees may be sufficient. Performance of the
work might in some instances be "evidence" of a claim on the work
that creates a jurisdictional dispute.          See, e.g., Int'l
Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 62-B v. N.L.R.B.
(Alaska Timber), 
781 F.2d 919
, 924-26 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Int'l
Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 14 (Sierra Pacific),
314 N.L.R.B. 834
, 936 (1994), aff'd 
85 F.3d 646
, 651-53 (D.C. Cir.
1996). It is not clear that these cases help the company, which
assigned the "electrical" work to other unions willing to do it.
The real dispute is still between Shank/BB and the electrical
union.   And the NLRB precedent, which only plays the role of
background context for contract construction, involves NLRA
jurisdictional disputes, which by statute are resolved by a third
party, and not one of the disputing participants. See 29 U.S.C.
§ 158(b)(4)(D); 
id. § 160(k).
     Page 11, line 16: insert apostrophe after "laborers"

     Page 16, line 19: insert "operating" before "engineers'"

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer