Areas Handled By Our Labor & Employment Lawyers

The firm successfully defended the client’s right to assign plastering work to employees represented by the Carpenters union instead of to employees represented by the Plasterers union. The Plasterers union’s state court lawsuit was deemed to be a claim to the plastering work.

The Court held that an employee could not sue in state court for defamation, but instead had to take these claims to arbitration.

In the first decision ever rendered on the issue, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled in favor of the firm’s client, San Diego AGC, holding that 20 foot by 4 foot banners displayed by the Carpenters Union in front of various business premises constituted an unlawful secondary boycott.

The firm successfully defended a general contractor’s right to prevent illegal trespassing by union business agents on a private construction job in San Diego. The union filed unfair labor practice charges against the firm's client when its union business agents were denied access to a jobsite and then locked in the jobsite fence to await police assistance. The Office of General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board agreed the charges should be dismissed because the business agents did not have the right to access the interior of the construction jobsite, especially given the posted no-access and no-solicitation rules.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held in favor of San Diego AGC ruling that state apprenticeship rules were unenforceable because federal law prevailed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with our contractor/client by holding that pension fund withdrawal claims must be arbitrated, not brought in federal court by union pension funds.

The Court ruled that the employer client had good cause to terminate an under performing employee.

The Court held public works investigators were required to be paid overtime compensation.

The Court held that an employee leasing company had no mechanic’s lien rights for unpaid labor charges on property owned by client’s customer.

The National Labor Relations Board held that the union violated the law when it fined a supervisor because he was working for a non-signatory company.

The Court held that a union member employee could not sue a contractor for wrongful termination, but instead had to pursue his claim in arbitration.

The Court ruled that the client timely terminated a collective bargaining agreement and thereafter had no obligation to pay fringe benefit contributions for its employees.

The National Labor Relations Board ruled that the union committed a secondary boycott when it posted a union business agent at a reserved gate on the project.

The Court held that an economic downturn was good cause to terminate an employee.

The National Labor Relations Board held that the client gave timely notice to terminate a collective bargaining agreement and that it did not bargain in bad faith with a union.

The Court held that a union could not demand that the client be fired for refusing to pay union dues.

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that labor unions must not charge employees dues for non-collective bargaining purposes.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a retroactive pension law that would have required the client to pay an enormous unfunded vested pension liability.

The Court ruled that employees of a contractor could not sue in federal court to recover prevailing wages on a federal project.

2011: The firm successfully argued to the National Labor Relations Board that two state-court lawsuits and two arbitration decisions against our client violated the National Labor Relations Act because the lawsuits and the arbitration decisions sought to force the client to reassign plastering work from the client’s Carpenter-represented employees. The National Labor Relations Board agreed that the client should recover its attorneys’ fees in defending against the lawsuits and in defending against the arbitration awards.

Counsel: Mark T. Bennett

2011: The firm’s client was charged by the National Labor Relations Board with unlawfully enforcing a policy that prohibited off-duty employees from returning to the workplace when they were not on duty. The NLRB alleged the policy violated the off-duty employees’ right to engage in union activity. Based on the firm’s argument at the hearing that the policy had a valid basis, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed the complaint.

Counsel: Mark T. Bennett

2010: In an administrative proceeding before the California Department Of Industrial Relations, the Division of Apprenticeship Standards (DAS) cited the firm’s client for an alleged failure to comply with the apprenticeship requirements of California’s Prevailing Wage Law at Labor Code section 1777.5 and the California Code of Regulations section 203.1. The firm quickly convinced the DAS that the complainant, a union watchdog-type group, was wrong in its use of the law relating to approved apprenticeship programs and apprentice dispatch requests. The DAS dismissed the complaint before a hearing was necessary. In short order, the firm’s client was paid in full its project funds which had been withheld due to the apprenticeship complaint.

Counsel: Chad T. Wishchuk

2009: The firm recovered over $1 million on behalf of its general contractor client against the school district and its labor compliance program. In this first of its kind lawsuit, the firm asserted civil rights and other claims against the labor compliance program which was withholding contract funds far in excess of that justified by the California Prevailing Wage Law. The case settled, and in addition to the large recovery, the firm's client was paid its attorneys' fees.

Counsel: Chad T. Wishchuk

2009: At the firm’s request, the NLRB obtained an injunction against Plasterers’ Local 200 under section 10(l) of the National Labor Relations Act. The injunction specifically enjoined Local 200 from prosecuting two state-court lawsuits. The state-court lawsuits sought millions of dollars in damages because the firm’s client assigned plastering work to employees who were represented by the Carpenters’ union. The Ninth Circuit rejected Local 200’s argument that the injunction violated the First Amendment.

Counsel: Stephen J. Schultz and Mark T. Bennett

2009: This case involved work under a PLA that the firm’s client performed on a public works project. The AFL-CIO’s Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry issued an arbitration award against the firm’s client. The Federal Court granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment to vacate the Plan award. The Federal Court agreed with the firm that the Plan award violated public policy.

Counsel: Stephen J. Schultz and Mark T. Bennett

2008: Local 200 of the Plasterers’ union filed two state court lawsuits against the firm’s client, which was signed to a collective-bargaining agreement with the Carpenters’ union. Local 200’s lawsuits sought injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitution. Unfair labor practice charges were filed against Local 200 under section 8(b)(4)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act. The charges alleged the real motive behind the lawsuits was to force a reassignment of plastering work to Local 200’s members instead of continuing to assign that work to employees represented by the Carpenters’ union. A National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge agreed. He ordered the lawsuits be dropped and that the firm’s client be reimbursed for its attorneys’ fees.

Counsel: Stephen J. Schultz and Mark T. Bennett

2007: The Southern California District Council of Laborers filed an election petition with the National Labor Relations Board. The Union sought to represent a bargaining unit comprised of all the company's field construction employees, including its foremen. The firm successfully argued the foremen were supervisors, must be excluded from the bargaining unit, and could not vote in the election. The union lost the election 49 to 19.

Counsel: Stephen J. Schultz

2006: This case involved a proceeding under section 10(k) of the National Labor Relations Act. The firm successfully defended the client’s right to assign plastering work on all Southern California public works projects to employees represented by the Carpenters union instead of to employees represented by the Plasterers union. The National Labor Relations Board agreed with the firm that the client did not have to submit the work assignment issue to the AFL-CIO’s Plan for Resolution of Jurisdictional Disputes.

Counsel: Mark T. Bennett

2006: Two day National Labor Relations Board hearing in which the firm successfully defended its client’s right to assign plastering work to employees represented by the Carpenters' union instead of to employees represented by the Plasterers’ union. The Plasterers’ union’s state court lawsuit was deemed to be a claim to the plastering work.

Counsel: Mark T. Bennett