SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION 105 AN UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION v. Epic Sheet Metal Inc., a California corporation, Defendant. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-09-10No. No. 20-55849

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's order confirming the arbitration award, holding that the collective bargaining agreement continued in full force and effect beyond June 30, 2017, because the parties had not completed the renegotiation procedures triggered by SMART's timely notice of reopening.

Titan Sheet Metal Inc. appealed a district court decision that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 105 (SMART). The central dispute concerned whether a collective bargaining agreement between the parties remained in effect after its stated expiration date of June 30, 2017. The court concluded that under the plain language of the agreement's Article XVII, Section 1, SMART's timely notice of intent to reopen negotiations caused the agreement to continue beyond the expiration date until the renegotiation process was completed. Because the parties never finished those renegotiation procedures, the agreement did not terminate on the stated date.

Titan raised several challenges to the arbitration award. It argued that SMART had waived its grievance by not raising it before the expiration date, that the agreement's anti-repudiation provision no longer applied after June 30, 2017, and that the grievance process would have been futile since Titan had ceased operations. The court rejected all these arguments, finding that Titan remained bound by the agreement's obligations, including its duty not to subcontract work to non-union parties. The court also rejected Titan's claim that SMART had made judicial admissions that the agreement expired, distinguishing between acknowledging the stated expiration date and admitting the agreement was no longer enforceable.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a collective bargaining agreement continued beyond its stated expiration date when renegotiation procedures were initiated but not completed
Whether SMART waived its grievance by failing to raise it before the expiration date
Whether Titan's cessation of operations relieved it of obligations under the agreement
Whether SMART's acknowledgment of the stated expiration date constituted a judicial admission that the agreement was no longer enforceable

Procedural posture

Titan appealed from a district court order granting SMART's motion to confirm an arbitration award and denying Titan's motion to vacate that award.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM *

Titan Sheet Metal Inc. (“Titan”) appeals from the district courts order granting a motion by Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 105 (“SMART”) to confirm an arbitration award against Titan and denying Titans motion to vacate that award. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16(a)(1)(D) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

The district court did not err in determining the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Titan and SMART continued in effect beyond its stated expiration date of June 30, 2017. By the plain terms of Article XVII, Section 1 of the CBA, SMARTs submission of a timely notice of reopening to Titan caused the CBA to continue in effect until certain renegotiation procedures were completed. The parties failed to complete such renegotiation procedures, and so the CBA did not terminate on June 30, 2017. Beach Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers Intl Assn, Local Union No. 102, which involved facts that are not materially distinguishable from those of this case and likewise concluded the collective bargaining agreement continued in full force and effect pending completion of renegotiation procedures, confirms this conclusion. 55 F.3d 474, 476–78 (9th Cir. 1995).

Because the CBA continued in effect after June 30, 2017, we reject Titans arguments that SMART implicitly waived its grievance under the CBA by failing to raise it before June 30, 2017, and that the CBAs bar on repudiation during the term of the agreement did not apply after that date. We also reject Titans argument that because it had ceased to operate by June 30, 2017, the grievance procedure would be futile. Even assuming that Titan ceased operations, Titan was not relieved from its obligations under the CBA, such as its obligation under Article II, Section 1 to refrain from subcontracting or assigning work to non-union third parties.

Titan waived its arguments that specified pleadings submitted by SMART contained judicial admissions that the CBA expired on June 30, 2017 because Titan did not raise these arguments in the district court. But even if these arguments were not waived, we reject them because SMART did not judicially admit that the CBA was of no further force or effect after June 30, 2017; it merely acknowledged that the CBA passed its stated expiration date.

Because the CBA continued in full force and effect past June 30, 2017, we need not reach Titans argument that the district court erred in supposedly determining that Titans alleged violations of the CBA began before June 30, 2017.

AFFIRMED.