*Thanks to Rebecca D. Takacs, a construction litigator, with Oles Morrison Rinker &Baker LLP in Oakland, California. Rebecca is a member of the Division 1 Publication Committee. Her contact information is below. Enjoy the post!
The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 954 in 2016 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB954) for the express purpose of prohibiting payments to industry advancement funds as wage credits on public works projects where such credits were not expressly required by collective bargaining agreements. Plaintiff-Appellants Interpipe Contracting, Inc. and Associated Builders and Contractors of California Cooperation Committee, Inc. (“ABC-CCC”) challenged the amendment to the labor code’s wage-credit limitation in Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra (9th Cir., July 30, 2018, No. 17-55248) 2018 WL 3613378 (https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000012920).
The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 954 in 2016 (http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB954) for the express purpose of prohibiting payments to industry advancement funds as wage credits on public works projects where such credits were not expressly required by collective bargaining agreements. Plaintiff-Appellants Interpipe Contracting, Inc. and Associated Builders and Contractors of California Cooperation Committee, Inc. (“ABC-CCC”) challenged the amendment to the labor code’s wage-credit limitation in Interpipe Contracting, Inc. v. Becerra (9th Cir., July 30, 2018, No. 17-55248) 2018 WL 3613378 (https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_video.php?pk_vid=0000012920).
Interpipe Contracting, Inc., is a pro-open shop contractor
that prior to SB 954 went in effect took wage credits for contributions to
ABC-CCC. ABC-CCC is an industry advancement fund that opposes project labor
agreements on public works projects in favor of open shop arrangements. The
plaintiff-appellants challenged SB 954 after Interpipe stopped making payments
to ABC-CCC due to the new restrictions on wage-credits.
SB 954 was intended to have a large effect on the
construction industry in California. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates
that just under 15% of construction industry labor nationally is union labor or
union represented. (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/union2.t03.htm)
SB 954 was intended to prevent employers from funding industry advancement
funds that might support efforts contrary to workers interests. At the time of
SB 954’s passage, industry opponents considered the SB 954 to be an outright
ban on contributions to industry advance funds that might advocate for open
shop policies.
The lower court action challenged the constitutionality of
SB 954 and sought a preliminary injunction. The district court denied the
request for injunctive relief and dismissed the case on the basis that SB 954
was not preempted by federal labor laws and did not violate ABC-CCC’s free
speech or equal protection rights.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was
presented with two issues: (1) whether the National Labor Relations Act
(“NLRA”) preempted SB 954, and (2) whether SB 954 violated the First Amendment
and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by limiting industry
advancement funds’ speech in the form of fundraising. The Ninth Circuit
affirmed the lower court.
The Ninth Circuit outlined the current state of prevailing
wage requirements in California. Prevailing wages are either all cash wages or
a combination of cash wages and benefits including: (1) health and welfare, (2)
pension, (3) vacation, (4) travel, (5) subsistence, (6) apprenticeship or other
training, (7) worker protection and assistance programs or committees, (8)
industry advancement and administrative fees, provided they are required within
the locality, and (9) other similar purposes to the above categories. Cal. Lab. Code § 1773.1(a). In 2004, credits
expanded from the first six categories to include industry advancement fees.
The restrictions on industry advancement fees arose in 2016 with the passage of
SB 954. The thrust of plaintiff-appellants challenge relied on Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Rel.
Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132 (1976). The Machinists
doctrine bars states from interfering with the collective bargaining process
and regulating non-coercive labor speech by an employer, employee, or an
employee’s union. State minimum labor standards are generally saved from
preemption by the NLRA. The Ninth Circuit held SB 954 was a legitimate minimum
labor standard that does not regulate labor speech. The distinction hinged on
the fact that a restriction on funding an employer’s speech was not an unlawful
regulation of the speech itself.
ABC-CCC argued it had a First Amendment right to receive
monetary contributions from wage-credits. The Ninth Circuit rejected ABC-CCC’s
theory holding that the First Amendment does not establish a right to receive
funds necessary for speech. The Ninth Circuit evaluated whether SB 954 was
viewpoint discriminatory toward open shop advocates. Relying on the recent
Supreme Court case of Janus v. American
Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, et al.,
138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018) (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf),
the Ninth Circuit found SB 954 to be facially neutral and rejected ABC-CCC’s
discrimination arguments.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit rejected the equal protection
claim by ABC-CCC because SB 954 did not regulate industry advancement funds and
it was not an employer.
Rebecca D. Takacs is a contributing writer to The Dispute
Resolver. She practices construction litigation at Oles Morrison Rinker &
Baker LLP in Oakland, California. She may be contacted at takacs@oles.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment