Bluelinx Corporation v. Construction

Background

BlueLinx operated a distribution center in Maple Grove, Minnesota. Local 120 represented the hourly material handlers and truck drivers at that facility. Their collective bargaining agreement was effective from July 15, 2014, through July 14, 2020, and included a grievance and arbitration procedure.

BlueLinx acquired a competitor’s distribution facility in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, in April 2018. BlueLinx decided to close the Maple Grove facility and use the Brooklyn Park facility instead. Local 120 filed a grievance asserting that BlueLinx violated the agreement by refusing to recognize Local 120 as the bargaining representative for production and maintenance employees performing the work at the Brooklyn Park facility.

BlueLinx filed this action seeking a declaration that the agreement did not apply to the Brooklyn Park employees and that the dispute was not subject to arbitration. Local 120 filed a counterclaim seeking an order requiring arbitration. Both parties moved for summary judgment, a procedure used when the material facts are undisputed and the court can decide the legal issues without a trial.

Arbitration Analysis

The court explained that arbitration is based on the parties’ agreement. The agreement did not specifically address the scope of arbitrability or state that an arbitrator should decide whether a dispute was arbitrable. The court found that both sides’ interpretations of the agreement were reasonable and that the arbitration provision was broad enough that the dispute might ordinarily be covered under the usual presumption favoring arbitration.

The court concluded, however, that the collective bargaining agreement could not be considered valid as applied to the Brooklyn Park employees unless Local 120 was their proper bargaining representative. The Brooklyn Park employees had previously worked for the acquired company and had never been represented by a union. They had not voted to select Local 120, and the record did not show that they wanted Local 120 or any union to represent them. The record also did not show that any employees from the Maple Grove facility had transferred to Brooklyn Park.

The court found insufficient information about the Brooklyn Park employees’ compensation, benefits, working conditions, and other factors needed to determine whether they could properly be added to the existing bargaining unit without an election. It concluded that imposing Local 120’s representation on those employees would conflict with the labor-law policy favoring employee self-determination. The court therefore held that Local 120 could not properly represent the Brooklyn Park employees through the agreement’s arbitration procedure.

Ruling

The court granted BlueLinx’s motion for summary judgment and declared that the arbitration provision did not encompass the dispute over whether Local 120 should be recognized as the bargaining agent for the Brooklyn Park employees. It also ordered that Local 120 was precluded from continuing to pursue its arbitration demand under the agreement.

The court denied Local 120’s motion for summary judgment. It granted no costs or attorney fees to either party because BlueLinx had not provided legal authority or facts supporting its request.