Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
October 7, 2016, Argued and Submitted, Portland, Oregon; July 24, 2017, Filed
[*1183] O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge:
We must decide whether allegedly anticompetitive activities engaged in jointly by a labor union and a multi-employer collective bargaining association violate antitrust law.
ICTSI Oregon, Inc. ("ICTSI"), a subsidiary of International Container Terminal Services, Inc., began operating a marine shipping facility ("Terminal 6") in 2011, leased from the Port of Portland. It employed longshoremen and mechanics, among others, represented by the International Longshore and Warehouse Union ("ILWU"), a labor union that represents many of the shore-based laborers of the maritime industry.
ICTSI is a member of the Pacific Maritime Association ("PMA"), a multi-employer collective bargaining association representing many types of maritime employers who hire dockworkers and longshoremen. PMA represents ICTSI in collective [**4] bargaining negotiations with ILWU.
ILWU and PMA are parties to a collective bargaining agreement known as the Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerks Agreement (the "CBA") covering the entire West Coast of the United States which governed the employment terms for all longshoremen employed by ICTSI during all times relevant to this appeal. The CBA is administered by the Joint Coast Labor Relations Committee ("Joint Committee"). The parties disagree over whether the Joint Committee, which meets regularly as the master labor-management committee under the CBA, has the authority to issue contractual interpretations that are binding on all signatories. ILWU and PMA agreed that, with some exceptions, all reefer work—the work of plugging, unplugging, and monitoring refrigerated shipping containers—would be performed by ILWU for all PMA members.
ILWU sought to perform the reefer work at Terminal 6, but such work had historically been within the jurisdiction of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("IBEW"). The Joint Committee met on May 23, 2012, to resolve the disputed work assignment and determined that the work belonged to ILWU and then ordered ICTSI to assign the work accordingly. [**5] ICTSI argued, and still argues, that the reefer work at Terminal 6 was not its to assign under the terms of its lease with the Port of Portland. On June 4, 2012, an arbitrator, claiming authority under the CBA's grievance provisions, determined that ICTSI was in violation of the CBA and ordered it to give the reefer work at [*1184] Terminal 6 to ILWU. The Joint Committee issued another decision a few days later, incorporating the arbitrator's decision and reiterating its previous command that ICTSI grant the disputed work to ILWU. ICTSI also alleges that PMA, with the encouragement of ILWU, threatened numerous daily fines of $50,000 and even expulsion of ICTSI from the collective bargaining association to goad it into compliance with the Joint Committee decisions.
Meanwhile, ICTSI commenced a § 10(k) proceeding under the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), before the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), to resolve the jurisdictional dispute between the rival unions. 29 U.S.C. § 160(k). The NLRB issued a decision on August 13, 2012, finding that ILWU workers were not entitled to the reefer work at Terminal 6, but rather that IBEW workers were. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, 358 N.L.R.B. 903, 907 (2012).2
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
863 F.3d 1178 *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13271 **; 209 L.R.R.M. 3317; 167 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P11,029; 2017-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P80,067; 98 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 222; 2017 WL 3122767
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION; PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, Plaintiffs-Counter-Claim-Defendants-Appellees, v. ICTSI OREGON, INC., an Oregon corporation, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Plaintiff-Appellant.
Subsequent History: US Supreme Court certiorari denied by ICTSI Or., Inc. v. Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 1612 (U.S., Mar. 5, 2018)
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. D.C. No. 3:12-cv-01058-SI. Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding.
Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union v. ICTSI Or., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195298 (D. Or., June 3, 2014)
exemption, nonstatutory, antitrust, district court, labor law, collective bargaining, counterclaim, anticompetitive, alleges, bargaining, reefer, wages, working conditions, final judgment, mandatory, partial, sham, alleged agreement, anti trust law, labor union, conspiracy, violating, parties, cases, antitrust liability, illegal agreement, bargaining unit, proceedings, baseless, contends
Civil Procedure, Judgments, Entry of Judgments, Multiple Claims & Parties, Antitrust & Trade Law, Private Actions, Standing, Requirements, Appeals, Standards of Review, De Novo Review, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Exemptions & Immunities, Noerr-Pennington Doctrine, Right to Petition Immunity, Sham Exception, Labor & Employment Law, Collective Bargaining & Labor Relations, Unfair Labor Practices, Jurisdiction, Labor, Nonstatutory Exemptions, Union Violations, Secondary Activities, Business & Corporate Compliance, Labor & Employment Law, Bargaining Subjects