Tutor Perini Bldg. Corp. v. S. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers

Citation: 373 F. Supp. 3d 1309Docket: Case No. 2:18-cv-01723-SVW-JC

Court: District Court, C.D. California; January 1, 2019; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Tutor Perini Building Corp. initiated a legal action against the Southern California District Council of Laborers (SCDCL) and Local Union 1414 to vacate an arbitration award related to a grievance filed by Laborers concerning Tutor Perini's breach of a subcontracting provision in their collective bargaining agreement. During arbitration, Tutor Perini consented to the arbitrator's jurisdiction over the grievance, which resulted in the arbitrator ruling in favor of Laborers and awarding them damages. The court is required to uphold this award due to the deference given to arbitrators' decisions. Tutor Perini contends that the arbitrator's ruling conflicts with a prior National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) proceeding and claims it faces conflicting obligations between its agreements with Laborers and the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters. However, the court finds that Tutor Perini has misinterpreted its obligations and the earlier NLRB proceedings. Tutor Perini operates as an Arizona corporation in California and served as the general contractor for the Pechanga Hotel Expansion Project. It has collective bargaining agreements with both SCDCL, including Local 1414, and the Carpenters, which cover similar work types. The Laborers CBA consists of the Laborers' Short-Form Agreement and incorporates several multi-employer agreements relevant to the region.

Contractors are prohibited from assigning work under the Master Labor Agreements (MLA) to employees represented by other unions, as stated in the Short-Form Agreement. The MLA mandates that contractors, including Tutor Perini and its subcontractors, must subcontract work within Laborers' jurisdiction only to workers bound by a labor agreement with Laborers. Subcontractors are defined as entities that agree to subcontract work for a general contractor. Covered work under the MLA encompasses tasks necessary for all building trades craftsmen and specifically includes tasks performed by plaster tenders, who assist plasterers in fireproofing duties.

The Laborers Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) outlines grievance and arbitration procedures for disputes, with the Short-Form Agreement modifying these processes to require arbitration for all disputes between Tutor Perini and Laborers, including jurisdictional issues and misassignment of work. The arbitrator is empowered to make binding decisions and may issue injunctions against ongoing violations, as well as award damages equivalent to lost wages for Laborers' members affected by wrongful hiring practices.

Tutor Perini is also party to a separate CBA with Carpenters, which specifies that Carpenters members are entitled to perform all drywall work, including various fireproofing tasks. The Carpenters CBA explicitly states that Tutor Perini and its subcontractors cannot subcontract any work within the Carpenters' jurisdiction unless done with parties to a relevant labor agreement. This creates potential overlap between the Laborers CBA and the Carpenters CBA regarding "fireproofing support work," as both agreements lay claim to rights over work related to plaster tending and fireproofing activities.

Conflict over fireproofing support work poses a challenge for Tutor Perini as the general contractor. Tutor Perini must subcontract work per each union's collective bargaining agreement (CBA) to ensure union employees receive the appropriate work. Disputes over which union's agreement applies can lead to scrutiny from the excluded union. However, the CBAs are not in conflict regarding fireproofing; Carpenters claim jurisdiction over the actual fireproofing work, while Laborers only cover ancillary support work and disclaim jurisdiction over the primary tasks. Tutor Perini must hire a fireproofing subcontractor that is a signatory to the Carpenters CBA to ensure Carpenters handle the core fireproofing tasks, while it is not obliged to hire a Laborers signatory for the same. The dilemma lies in choosing between a Carpenters-only subcontractor, which would allocate support work to Carpenters, or a subcontractor signatory to both unions, allowing for Laborers to perform the support work.

In the Pechanga Hotel Expansion Project, Tutor Perini received bids from two subcontractors: Standard Drywall, Inc. (SDI), a Carpenters signatory but not a Laborers signatory, and KHS. S Contractors (KHS. S), which is a signatory to both CBAs. Although KHS. S could fulfill Tutor Perini's obligations under both agreements, Tutor Perini chose SDI due to its lower bid for the fireproofing work.

Tutor Perini and SDI executed a subcontract agreement on June 28, 2016, finalized on November 17, 2016, which outlined SDI's responsibilities for "Spray Fireproofing" and related work at the Project. This agreement made SDI liable for jurisdiction disputes and claims related to its subcontracted work. Tutor Perini's choice of SDI satisfied its obligations under the Carpenters Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), as SDI employed workers represented by the Carpenters. Conversely, Laborers employees were excluded from fireproofing tasks because SDI was not a signatory to the Laborers CBA. Following Tutor Perini's hiring of SDI, Laborers lodged a grievance on January 18, 2017, demanding Tutor Perini replace SDI with a Laborers-signatory subcontractor and claiming entitlement to wages and benefits for work performed by SDI. Tutor Perini responded on January 26, 2017, asserting that Laborers' grievance was a competitive claim and that hiring SDI was historically consistent within the project’s jurisdiction. Subsequently, the parties agreed to arbitration, which occurred on July 26, 2017. The arbitrator ruled on February 6, 2018, that Tutor Perini violated the Laborers CBA by not awarding the subcontract to a Laborers member, awarding damages of $199,214 to Laborers and $118,420 to the Laborers' trust fund. Tutor Perini then sought to vacate the arbitration award under 9 U.S.C. § 10, while Laborers moved to confirm it under 9 U.S.C. § 9. Jurisdiction over the dispute is established under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, allowing federal courts to hear cases regarding contract violations between employers and labor organizations without regard to the amount in controversy or the parties' citizenship.

The Supreme Court has interpreted Section 301(a) to grant district courts jurisdiction to enforce arbitration agreements and to vacate arbitration awards related to collective bargaining agreements. The Steelworkers Trilogy established a federal policy favoring arbitration in labor disputes, emphasizing its role in interpreting collective bargaining agreements. The Ninth Circuit supports this policy, asserting that labor arbitration awards should receive substantial deference, even if the arbitrator's reasoning is unclear or contains errors. Judicial review of arbitrator decisions is highly limited, with courts instructed not to engage with the merits of the arbitrator's decision. Specifically, courts should not overturn awards based on alleged misinterpretations of the contract. The Ninth Circuit identifies four specific grounds for vacating an arbitration award under Section 301: (1) the award does not derive from the collective bargaining agreement; (2) the arbitrator exceeds the issues presented; (3) the award violates public policy; or (4) the award is obtained through fraud.

Judicial review under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows parties to seek confirmation or vacate an arbitration award, as cited in their motions and the Complaint by Tutor Perini. Although the Ninth Circuit has not definitively ruled on the FAA's applicability to collective bargaining agreements, courts can reference the FAA for guidance. Review of arbitration awards under the FAA is limited and deferential, with courts required to confirm an award if the parties have agreed to judicial confirmation and the award has not been vacated, modified, or corrected. The FAA enumerates specific grounds for vacating an award, including corruption, evident partiality, misconduct, and arbitrators exceeding their powers. The Supreme Court has affirmed that these grounds are exclusive for overturning an award. Narrow interpretations of the FAA's Section 10(a) restrict courts from conducting merits reviews, permitting vacatur only when an arbitrator's decision is "completely irrational" or shows "manifest disregard of law." Manifest disregard requires that the moving party prove the arbitrator understood and correctly stated the law but chose to disregard it, as interpreted by the Ninth Circuit.

To establish manifest disregard of the law in the Ninth Circuit, it must be evident that the arbitrator acknowledged the relevant law and then chose to ignore it, with the disregarded law being well-defined and explicitly applicable. An arbitration award is deemed completely irrational only if it fails to derive its essence from the parties' agreement, which requires consideration of the agreement's language, context, and the parties' intentions. Confirmation of an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is necessary even if the award stems from erroneous fact findings or misinterpretations of law, as parties assume the risk of imperfect legal interpretations by arbitrators acting in good faith.

Tutor Perini raises three grounds for vacating the arbitration award. First, it claims that the dispute over subcontracting rights is a "jurisdictional dispute" that must be adjudicated by the Board under Section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as both Laborers and Carpenters assert rights to the same work. Second, Tutor Perini contends that the award contradicts a prior 10(k) determination by the Board that assigned plastering work to Carpenters, arguing that this conflict renders the award void under the Ninth Circuit's "supremacy doctrine." Lastly, Tutor Perini asserts that the award violates public policy by conflicting with the Board's earlier decision. It characterizes the situation as a "quintessential jurisdictional dispute" regarding fireproofing support work, indicating that any subcontractor choice would lead to a violation of one of the unions' collective bargaining agreements.

Tutor Perini contended during arbitration that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction over a dispute that it deemed jurisdictional and an unfair labor practice under 8(b)(4)(D), which necessitated a 10(k) determination from the Board. However, Tutor Perini did not challenge the arbitrator's authority to rule on this jurisdictional issue nor did it address whether it violated the Laborers CBA by not hiring a signatory fireproofing subcontractor. The ability to arbitrate issues of arbitrability is rooted in contract law, allowing parties to submit even the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. The parties demonstrated implicit consent for the arbitrator to decide jurisdiction through their conduct, including their explicit agreement during the arbitration hearing. Both parties' counsels affirmatively responded to the arbitrator's inquiry about his jurisdiction, indicating a mutual intent for him to resolve the issue. The arbitrator dismissed Tutor Perini's jurisdictional argument in the Award, acknowledging the existence of concurrent jurisdiction between arbitration and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearings but did not find justification for the arbitrator to defer jurisdiction based solely on potential NLRB involvement. Ultimately, the arbitrator concluded he had jurisdiction over the subcontracting grievance, and the court is required to defer to the merits of the Award on this matter.

The arbitrator has the exclusive authority to determine arbitrability, and the court cannot replace the arbitrator's judgment, regardless of its own views on the decision's correctness. The Laborers CBA mandates arbitration for all disputes, including jurisdictional ones, which means the Award is valid and reflects the parties' intent. Tutor Perini's argument that the arbitrator's decision constituted a "manifest disregard of law" fails because no legal authority requiring the arbitrator to abstain from addressing jurisdictional disputes was presented. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has affirmed that potential jurisdictional conflicts do not prevent arbitration. Tutor Perini could have preserved judicial scrutiny of the arbitrator's jurisdiction by refusing to arbitrate, objecting on the record to the arbitrator’s jurisdiction, or filing a lawsuit for a declaratory judgment before arbitration. Instead, Tutor Perini fully consented to arbitration, allowing the arbitrator to rule on his jurisdiction. Consequently, the court must defer to the arbitrator's determination of jurisdiction over the subcontracting dispute, affirming that Tutor Perini’s claims of lack of authority are unfounded.

The Court is bound to uphold the arbitrator's findings based on deferential standards. Tutor Perini argues the Award should be invalidated because it conflicts with a prior 10(k) determination by the Board, which awarded disputed plastering work to employees of SDI represented by Carpenters. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) empowers the Board to adjudicate disputes to prevent unfair labor practices (29 U.S.C. 160(a)). Section 10(k) specifically allows the Board to address charges of unfair labor practices under Section 8(b)(4)(D), which prohibits labor organizations from striking or stopping work to compel employers to assign work to specific unions unless the employer fails to comply with a Board determination regarding the bargaining representative.

The supremacy doctrine, as established by the Ninth Circuit, prohibits an arbitrator from issuing an award that contradicts a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determination. A section 10(k) decision takes precedence over any inconsistent arbitration award, as affirmed in several Ninth Circuit cases. Notably, the failure to challenge an arbitration award within the designated timeframe does not prevent a subsequent section 10(k) decision from nullifying the conflicting award. The Ninth Circuit has clarified that a section 10(k) determination made after an arbitration award effectively voids that award. However, this does not entirely invalidate the award; it is only superseded to the extent necessary to implement the 10(k) decision, ensuring that the authority of arbitration is not undermined beyond what is needed to resolve the jurisdictional dispute.

In Carpenters' Local Union No. 1478 v. Stevens, the Ninth Circuit established that when there is a conflict between the findings of the Board and those of an arbitrator, the Board's decision prevails. The prior Board ruling relevant to this case is the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (Standard Drywall, Inc.), which determined that Standard Drywall, Inc. (SDI) was required to assign plastering work to employees represented by the Carpenters due to a jurisdictional dispute with the Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local No. 200. The Board defined "plastering work" broadly, inclusive of various applications like fireproofing and decorative finishes.

SDI had a written agreement with the Carpenters requiring it to assign plastering work to their employees, while it had no such agreement with Local 200. After Local 200 initiated a state court lawsuit against SDI for violations of California's prevailing wage law, SDI sought a second Board proceeding to clarify jurisdiction over plastering work on public projects across 12 counties in Southern California. 

In this second proceeding, the Board affirmed that plastering work should be assigned to Carpenters' employees, taking into account factors like existing collective bargaining agreements, SDI's preferences, and operational efficiency. Unlike a previous ruling that was limited to a single project, this decision applied broadly to all similar future work, acknowledging the likelihood of ongoing disputes due to Local 200's litigation efforts. The ruling specifically granted Carpenters' employees the right to perform plastering work on public projects in the specified counties. 

Tutor Perini has characterized the Laborers' subcontracting grievance as a jurisdictional dispute, as it involves conflicting claims by competing unions over the same fireproofing support work to be performed by subcontractor employees.

Tutor Perini contends that the subcontracting grievance represents a jurisdictional dispute regarding the work of SDI's employees, asserting that the Award stating Tutor Perini violated subcontracting obligations under the Laborers CBA contradicts the Board's 10(k) determination in SDI II, which mandated Tutor Perini to subcontract fireproofing work to SDI. The Board has previously rejected Tutor Perini's characterization of the subcontracting dispute, consistently distinguishing between disputes over work claims between competing unions and breaches of subcontracting agreements under collective bargaining agreements. The Board has ruled that breaches of such agreements do not constitute violations of Section 8(b)(4)(D). 

Relevant cases illustrate this principle: in Laborers International Union of North America v. Capitol Drilling Supplies, the Board found no violation of 8(b)(4)(D) when a union sought to enforce a collective bargaining clause requiring subcontracts to union members. In Carpenters Local 33, the Board determined that a union could assert contract rights against a general contractor without infringing upon 10(k) decisions. A significant aspect of jurisdictional disputes arises when unions threaten economic action against contractors regarding subcontracting decisions, which enables general contractors to file unfair labor charges and initiate 10(k) proceedings. In prior cases, such as Miron Construction, the Board concluded that a union's pursuit of a subcontracting grievance without economic action does not create competing claims for disputed work, thereby negating the basis for unfair labor practice charges against the union. Consequently, the union's actions alone did not constitute a valid dispute with the general contractor.

The Board found no jurisdictional dispute due to the subcontractor's lack of enforcement actions such as picketing or striking. Case law indicates that a grievance over a subcontracting agreement is not a jurisdictional dispute without a union's actual claim to the work. The case of Associated General Contractors of America, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 701 illustrates this point, where the Board addressed a dispute over concrete pump workers at a nuclear power plant. Local 701, a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with AGC, stipulated that AGC members could only subcontract concrete pumping work to signatory subcontractors.

Western-Pacific Piledriving Corp., an AGC member, subcontracted the work to Pump-Con, which was part of the Northwest Concrete Pumping Association and bound by a different agreement requiring Teamsters members to operate pumps. Local 701 filed a grievance, leading to a ruling that affirmed Local 701's entitlement to the work. Following a Teamsters strike threat, Western-Pacific filed an unfair labor charge, and the Board determined that Teamsters were entitled to the work, expanding this ruling to all similar situations involving Northwest members.

Despite losing the case, Local 701 continued to file grievances against AGC members who violated the collective agreement by subcontracting to Northwest. When AGC sought declaratory and injunctive relief, the district court initially ruled for contract reformation, but the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision. The appellate court recognized the preemptive effect of the Board's 10(k) determination on conflicting contract provisions but clarified that this does not invalidate the contract provision entirely. The court differentiated this case from others involving a single employer facing conflicting union demands, noting that AGC members could meet their obligations to Local 701 by hiring only signatory subcontractors without violating the Board's order, as contracting with Northwest would not be legally required.

AGC members can contract with a subcontractor who is part of the AGC-Local 701 agreement without breaching that contract. The NLRB decision does not prevent compliance with the AGC-Local 701 agreement; it only states that subcontracting with a Northwest member violates that agreement, resulting in the Teamsters receiving the work. The Ninth Circuit clarified that while Local 701 cannot enforce its collective bargaining agreement to require the hiring of its employees over Northwest members, it can still seek damages for breaches of the agreement by AGC members. Other courts have affirmed that grievances regarding subcontracting do not constitute jurisdictional disputes but rather valid contractual claims. Cases such as Hutter Construction Co. and Miron Construction Co. illustrate that arbitrators’ awards regarding subcontracting issues can coexist with NLRB decisions. The Laborers Union's grievance in the current dispute does not claim entitlement to work from the subcontractor SDI, nor did they threaten any labor action against Tutor Perini for choosing SDI over their preferred subcontractor KHS. The Master Labor Agreement (MLA) explicitly prohibits the Laborers from using strikes or economic actions to enforce subcontracting provisions.

Laborers did not make a legitimate claim to the fireproofing support work for the Project, which meant that the subcontracting dispute was solely a financial matter regarding contract damages, based on the collective bargaining agreement between Tutor Perini and Laborers. The Board lacks authority to resolve purely financial subcontracting disputes, as violations of subcontracting provisions do not constitute "unfair labor practices" under 8(b)(4)(D) without adverse economic action from the union. Consequently, the dispute was outside the Board's jurisdiction and did not contradict the SDI II decision.

Tutor Perini's cited cases, which argue that the subcontracting dispute is jurisdictional, are distinguishable. In Local 32, the Ninth Circuit found a conflict between a Board decision and an arbitrator's ruling that awarded damages to a union; however, the current dispute only affected Tutor Perini without imposing damages on SDI, the subcontractor. In J.F. White, the First Circuit noted a conflict between a Board determination and an arbitration award, but here, the Award did not assign work to Laborers from the Carpenters. The Eighth Circuit's J.S. Alberici case involved intertwined jurisdictional and breach issues related to who operated equipment, but this case does not present such a conflict. Neither Tutor Perini nor Laborers assert that Laborers should perform the fireproofing work, acknowledging that SDI's employees, represented by Carpenters, were correctly assigned the work under the Board's determination in SDI II. Tutor Perini's assertion that any subcontracting decision would elicit claims from the other union is inaccurate.

In situations where a Carpenters-backed subcontractor competes with a Laborers-backed subcontractor for fireproofing work, Tutor Perini is not in a conflicting position between unions because both unions agree that the fireproofing work is covered solely by the Carpenters Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Tutor Perini is obligated to hire a fireproofing subcontractor that is a signatory to the Carpenters CBA to ensure that Carpenters-represented employees perform the work. Hiring a non-signatory subcontractor would violate the Carpenters CBA, regardless of any jurisdictional overlap with Laborers regarding fireproofing support work.

As Tutor Perini must hire a Carpenters signatory for substantive fireproofing work, any subcontractor decision is limited to those who are signatories to the Carpenters CBA. Since KHS, the other bidding subcontractor, is a signatory to both the Carpenters and Laborers CBAs, hiring KHS would fulfill Tutor Perini's obligations to both unions and prevent any grievances from Carpenters. Disputes over work assignments would be the responsibility of the subcontractor, not Tutor Perini, as the subcontractor assigns the fireproofing support work. Thus, there is no genuine conflict between the Carpenters and Laborers CBAs regarding Tutor Perini's subcontracting obligations.

S, as the subcontractor, is held accountable for jurisdictional disputes due to its status as a signatory to both the Laborers and Carpenters CBAs. S must manage any jurisdictional disputes and claims related to the work specified in the subcontract, ensuring that its employees do not engage in actions that could lead to strikes or work stoppages. By assigning responsibility for jurisdictional disputes concerning fireproofing support work to S, Tutor Perini is protected from involvement in union disputes. Hiring KHS. S would have fulfilled Tutor Perini's obligations to both unions and could have initiated a genuine jurisdictional dispute over fireproofing work, potentially leading to arbitration or a Board proceeding.

However, Tutor Perini chose to hire SDI, relinquishing the option to file unfair labor practice charges if KHS. S's employees engaged in a strike regarding their entitlement to fireproofing work under their CBAs. The decision to hire SDI did not trigger competing claims to the fireproofing work at the employee level, which is necessary for an unfair labor practice claim that invokes Board jurisdiction. The dispute raised by the Laborers merely seeks to hold Tutor Perini accountable for its choice to hire SDI under its contractual obligations without affecting the execution of fireproofing work on-site.

Consequently, the arbitrator's award is not subject to a jurisdictional dispute review by the Board, and the supremacy doctrine does not invalidate the award. The arbitrator awarded damages to the Laborers for breaches of the subcontracting provisions in the Laborers CBA but did not rule that the Laborers had a superior claim to SDI's plastering work.

The arbitrator addressed a contractual dispute between Tutor Perini and Laborers concerning a subcontracting clause, which was separate from issues regarding which SDI employees were entitled to perform fireproofing work or which union should receive the subcontract. The arbitrator did not award damages to Laborers based on the claim that its members were not hired by SDI for fireproofing support work, avoiding a contradiction with the Board's decision in SDI II, which allocated plastering work to SDI's Carpenters-represented employees. Consequently, the Award did not conflict with SDI II. Even if a jurisdictional conflict existed regarding the claims for fireproofing support work in the Laborers and Carpenters CBAs, it would not affect the Board’s prior ruling in SDI II, which specifically addressed the entitlement of certain labor organization employees to plastering work for SDI based on its collective bargaining agreement. Tutor Perini's interpretation that SDI II mandated hiring SDI as the exclusive fireproofing subcontractor is incorrect, as the Board’s ruling only pertained to disputes between labor organizations regarding SDI's employees for plastering work. The Board's determination limited its application to SDI's employees and did not impose any obligation on Tutor Perini to hire SDI as a subcontractor for any future projects. Furthermore, neither Tutor Perini nor Laborers were parties to SDI II, meaning the Board's determinations did not bind them in the current subcontracting dispute. The Board's ruling only required that SDI assign plastering work to its employees represented by Carpenters, without extending any obligations to Tutor Perini regarding subcontracting decisions.

Tutor Perini was not required to select SDI as the fireproofing subcontractor, and its choice of subcontractor would not affect the Board's findings regarding SDI's employees. SDI II protects SDI as an employer concerning its Carpenters-represented employees but does not impose obligations on general contractors like Tutor Perini in choosing between subcontractors. The ruling in SDI II does not address the overlap between the Laborers CBA and the Carpenters CBA concerning fireproofing work. SDI, which filed an unfair labor practice charge, had only an agreement with the Carpenters and none with Local 200. Local 200 contended that its employees should receive the plastering work based on industry practices and operational efficiency, regardless of SDI’s agreement with the Carpenters.

The Board's decision in SDI II was specifically limited to plastering work at public works projects and did not apply to Tutor Perini's obligations regarding a private hotel expansion project. The arbitrator did not address this issue, indicating it was not raised during arbitration. The court believes that even if SDI II generally required Tutor Perini to hire SDI for public works projects, it would not extend to the current project. Consequently, Tutor Perini's claim that the Award conflicts with the Board's previous determination is unfounded, as the Award pertains to a contractual dispute between Tutor Perini and Laborers, distinct from the jurisdictional dispute over fireproofing support work.

Lastly, Tutor Perini argued that the Award should be vacated for violating public policy by contradicting SDI II. Courts are not obliged to defer to arbitration awards that violate explicit public policies, which must be determined based on laws and precedents rather than on general public interest considerations.

To vacate an arbitration award, a court must find that the public policy at issue specifically opposes the relief granted by the arbitrator, as established in *Stead Motors* and *Misco*. The public policy exception is narrowly construed, with courts reluctant to vacate awards on these grounds, as noted in *E. Associated Coal* and *Ariz. Elec. Power Co-op*. The burden of proving a public policy violation lies with the party seeking to vacate the award, as demonstrated in *United Food*. Tutor Perini's argument centers on the supremacy doctrine, claiming that an arbitrator's award conflicting with a Board decision constitutes a public policy violation. Courts have interpreted this doctrine to invalidate awards that oppose 10(k) determinations based on public policy. However, the Ninth Circuit has rejected claims that awards violate public policy simply due to conflicting outcomes if the reasoning aligns with prior Board decisions, as seen in *Sea-Land*. The court finds that Tutor Perini did not meet the standards for vacating the award, as it does not contradict any prior Board determinations regarding SDI's employees and the subcontracting dispute is separate from jurisdictional claims of competing unions. The award relies on reasoning consistent with Board interpretations related to subcontracting grievances, even though it concludes that Tutor Perini violated the Laborers CBA. Consequently, Tutor Perini has not identified a well-defined public policy that undermines the arbitrator’s findings, leading the court to determine that the award does not violate public policy. Additionally, Laborers are granted seven extra days to file a motion for attorneys' fees following the court's resolution of the case.

Counsel for Laborers failed to provide a valid reason for not filing a motion for fees within the fourteen-day deadline mandated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B)(i), resulting in the denial of Laborers' request for an extension. The Court recognizes Tutor Perini's dilemma with conflicting collective bargaining agreements regarding fireproofing support work but emphasizes that as the general contractor, Tutor Perini is not responsible for decisions on contested work assignments; that responsibility lies with its subcontractors. Tutor Perini violated its subcontracting obligations to Laborers by hiring SDI, a Carpenters-only subcontractor, instead of KHS, which is signatory to both unions. This decision exposed Tutor Perini to grievances from Laborers, and it must bear the resultant costs. The Court's sole focus was to determine whether to uphold the arbitrator's Award, which found Tutor Perini in violation of subcontracting obligations. The Court upholds the Award, citing the deferential review standard for arbitral decisions, and clarifies that while Tutor Perini's concerns about overlapping claims between unions may have merit, they do not affect the current proceedings. Tutor Perini's misinterpretation of a prior 10(k) determination does not justify disregarding the Laborers CBA. The Court confirms the arbitration Award, denying Tutor Perini's motion to vacate it and granting Laborers' motion to confirm. Jurisdictional disputes are specifically exempt from the grievance process according to the MLA, requiring resolution between the competing unions themselves.

Tutor Perini's approach to subcontracting fireproofing work determines the nature of competitive bids it may receive. If Tutor Perini combines fireproofing work and support work in one bid, it limits the types of subcontractors that can compete. However, if these are bid separately, competing bids could arise from specialized subcontractors for each category. The court lacks evidence to evaluate the feasibility of separate bidding processes and is only illustrating the bids Tutor Perini received in this instance.

During a hearing concerning arbitration awards, the court sought additional input on the arbitrator's jurisdiction but noted that Tutor Perini's supplemental brief failed to address arbitrability, instead claiming the award violated public policy. The court clarified that the subcontracting grievance does not constitute a jurisdictional dispute suitable for Board consideration under California Labor Code § 1720 et seq.

Additionally, a third Board proceeding (SDI III) involved disputes between SDI and Local 200, culminating in an order for Local 200 to cease enforcement of arbitration awards that conflicted with previous Board rulings. This decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Tutor Perini's cited cases do not pertain to subcontracting disputes where union entitlements to perform work were challenged, thus making them inapplicable to the current matter. Cases referenced by Tutor Perini primarily address different issues, such as collective bargaining agreement violations rather than subcontracting grievances.

A portion of an arbitrator's award regarding bargaining units outside construction contracting has been vacated because the arbitrator incorrectly assumed that the parties had stipulated to specific facts, which contradicts the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determination that no such stipulation occurred. Unions are encouraged to voluntarily resolve jurisdictional disputes through arbitration to avoid costly strikes. In this case, when Tutor Perini addressed Laborers' demand regarding a subcontracting dispute, it characterized the issue as a jurisdictional claim between Laborers and Carpenters, but Laborers was not obligated to agree to arbitration with Carpenters to address Tutor Perini's alleged violation. Once the jurisdictional issue is settled, either by the unions or through a NLRB 10(k) proceeding, Tutor Perini will have clarity on which collective bargaining agreement governs fireproofing support work. A broad NLRB determination on jurisdiction could protect Tutor Perini from liability for subcontracting grievances. If a union attempts to enforce an arbitration award contradicting the NLRB's decision, the award may be invalidated under the supremacy doctrine. Tutor Perini may also file a charge with the NLRB if a union pursues arbitration contrary to the Board's jurisdiction, potentially leading to an injunction against the union. Until the jurisdictional dispute is resolved, Tutor Perini remains obligated under both collective bargaining agreements regarding hiring a fireproofing subcontractor that is signatory to both agreements.