United States District Court, W.D. New York
RHONDA P. LEY, Petitioner,
ROCHESTER REGIONAL JOINT BOARD, LOCAL 14A, Respondent
For Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the Third Region of the National Labor Relations Board, for and on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner: Jesse S. Feuerstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, National Labor Relations Board, Buffalo, NY.
For Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A, Respondent: Joseph A. Gawlowicz, Michael T. Harren, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Trevett, Cristo, Salzer & Andolina P.C., Rochester, NY.
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge.
Petitioner, Rhonda P. Ley, (" Petitioner" ) Regional Director of the Third Region of the National Labor Relations Board (" Board" ), brings this petition pursuant to Section 10(a) of the National Labor Relations Act (" the Act" ), 29 U.S.C. § 160(a), seeking to preliminarily enjoin Respondent Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (" Union" ) from engaging in alleged unfair labor practices in violation of Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B), as well as Section 8(e) of the Act. (Dkt. 15).
Petitioner claims that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement (" CBA" ) between the Union and the Employer, Xerox Corporation (" Employer" ), constitutes a " union signatory" agreement in violation of the Act, and that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII constitute additional violations of the Act. The Union maintains that Article XXII is a lawful work preservation provision and seeks to pursue arbitration to examine Article XXII in accordance with the terms of the CBA.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Petitioner has demonstrated that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Union is violating the Act, and that a preliminary injunction enjoining the Union from seeking to enforce Article XXII pending the Board's final adjudication of the matter is just and proper.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Union and the Employer have been parties to a CBA for at least 25 years. (Dkt. 16 at 2). The most recent version of the CBA is effective June 2, 2014 through June 1, 2018. (Dkt. 15 at 4). The Employer and Jones Lang Lasalle America, Inc. (" JLL" ) are parties to a separate agreement whereby JLL manages and administers the Employer's real estate, and have been parties to such an agreement since approximately 2008. (Dkt. 13-2 at 3). On or about November 1, 2012, JLL and the Employer entered into the current version of this real estate agreement. ( Id.).
According to the Employer, in April 2014, it informed the Union that it intended to seek to subcontract certain work to JLL later in the year. ( Id.).
On July 24, 2014, JLL representative David Nappi and Employer representative Linda Kelly met with the Union's business representative Roger LaDue. ( Id.). At this meeting, Ms. Kelly alleges that she informed Mr. LaDue of the specific tasks that the Employer intended to contract to JLL, and Mr. LaDue told Ms. Kelly that subcontracting this work would violate Article IIB of the CBA. ( Id. at 4).
On July 28, 2014, Mr. Nappi and Ms. Kelly met with the Union's representative Gary Bonadonna to discuss the subcontracting plans. ( Id.). According to Ms. Kelly, Mr. Bonadonna stated that contracting this work would violate Article IIB of the CBA. ( Id.).
According to Ms. Kelly, on August 12, 2014, the Employer decided to keep some of the work in-house that it had intended to subcontract, but still intended to subcontract work to JLL. ( Id.).
On August 21, 2014, the Union filed a grievance against the Employer, claiming that the Employer violated Article XXII of the CBA by subcontracting facilities work. ( Id. at 4, 9).
On September 3, 2014, the Employer and the Union met to discuss the grievance, and according to Ms. Kelly, Mr. LaDue indicated that he wanted a written
confirmation from JLL that it would honor the Union contract, pursuant to Article XXII of the CBA. ( Id. at 4).
The Employer filed a complaint with the Board alleging that the Union was engaging in unfair labor practices under the Act and Petitioner, as Regional Director, investigated the claims against the Union. (Dkt. 13-3 at ¶ 3).
Upon investigation, Petitioner determined that there was " reasonable cause to believe that [the Union] has violated the Act by seeking to enforce an unlawful agreement," and that, " unless enjoined, [the Union] will continue to seek to enforce the unlawful agreement." ( Id. at ¶ ¶ 3-4).
On October 16, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition with this Court seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Union from giving force and effect to Article XXII of the CBA through pursuit of the grievance by arbitration. (Dkt. 1). Petitioner ...