Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Howard S. Wright Construction Company appealed the dismissal of its action against Laborer’s International Union of North America, Local Union No. 169. The dispute centered on the validity of Wright's repudiation of a Section 8(f) prehire agreement. The appellate court conducted a de novo review and affirmed the district court's decision, citing the National Labor Relations Board's precedent in John Deklewa & Sons, which prohibits the midterm repudiation of such agreements by an employer. Wright's argument that it qualified for the 'single employee exception' was rejected since it employed two laborers during the contract term, disqualifying it from being considered a 'one-employee employer.' Additionally, the Union sought to challenge the trial court's order regarding the arbitration award, but their request was not entertained due to the absence of a cross-appeal, which limited their appellate rights. Consequently, the dismissal stood, and the appellate court's decision, not intended for publication, does not serve as precedent.
Legal Issues Addressed
Limitations on Appeal Rightssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that the Union could not seek a review of the trial court's order because it failed to file a cross-appeal.
Reasoning: Additionally, the Union's request to review the trial court's order denying confirmation and vacating the arbitration award was not considered, as the Union did not file a cross-appeal, which precludes it from enlarging its rights.
Repudiation of Section 8(f) Prehire Agreementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applies the principle that an employer cannot unilaterally repudiate a Section 8(f) prehire agreement midterm, following the NLRB's ruling in John Deklewa & Sons.
Reasoning: The National Labor Relations Board's ruling in John Deklewa & Sons establishes that an employer cannot repudiate a Section 8(f) prehire agreement midterm.
Single Employee Exceptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the single employee exception does not apply as Wright employed two laborers, disqualifying it from being considered a 'one-employee employer.'
Reasoning: Wright does not qualify for the 'single employee exception' because it employed two laborers during the contract term, contradicting the requirement that a qualifying employer must be a 'one-employee employer.'