District Council 36 Master Labor Agreement
According to the single employer theory, a collective agreement can only extend to a non-union enterprise if the NLRB finds that employees of trade union and non-union enterprises form a single bargaining unit. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d to 1470. The fact that the companies concerned can “form a single employer does not necessarily make it a single bargaining unit”. The bargaining unit issue is a “representative issue to be decided in the first instance by the NRSA.” In the absence of a finding by the NLRB that the employees of the union and non-union entities form a single bargaining unit, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction prevents the district court from extending a collective agreement to a non-union body. Id. at 1469-70. There are two related but different theories, the Alter Ego and Single Employer doctrines, which prevent contractors from using two-row transactions to avoid collective bargaining obligations.2 UA Local 343 v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d 1465, 1469-70 (9th Cir.1995). These two theories, which overlap considerably, require the District Court to first determine whether the two companies are a single employer. Id. at 1470; A. Dariano &Sons, Inc.
v. Dist. Council of Painters No. 33, 869 F.2d 514, 519 (9th Cir.1989). This provision includes the study of “the degree of common ownership, management, exploitation and labour relations”. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc., 48 F.3d to 1470. When the single employer threshold is reached, the next step will depend on the theory of liability pursued. The District Court held that the application for a finding of the Union was contested because SCP had ceased its activities in 2004 and GwG, which had signed SCP, had expired on 30 June 2006.
The Union argues that the right to a finding is not contested since SCP has voluntarily ceased its activities and can resume at any time. The Union also argues that SCP has not formally informed the Union of its intention to no longer sign the GwG, so that it remains a party to a renewed GwG that entered into force on 1 July 2006. We reject these arguments. Similarly, the evidence does not indicate that SCP used Rodin to circumvent the MLA`s SCP obligations, nor that Rodin used SCP to benefit from SCP`s union workers. The fact that some of Rodin`s employees offered office help to SCP does not support the union`s assertion because SCP fulfilled its obligations to GwG. No EU witnesses claimed that SCP had diverted jobs in the Union to Rodin in order to circumvent the obligations under the GWG; In fact, at least one witness said that any shift in jobs went the other way – from Rodin, the non-union company, to SCP, the union company. The District Court therefore made no mistake in rendering a summary judgment in favour of Rodin and SCP on the doctrine of alter ego. 5.
The District Court delivered a judgment in favour of SCP and Rodin, but did not address separately the theory of each employer. “However, we can confirm for any reason supported, even if it deviates from the statement of reasons of the district court.” Downs v. Hoyt, 232 F.3d 1031, 1036 (9 cir.2000). The applicant, Southern California Painters & Allied Trades, District Council No. 36 (“the Union”) brought a lawsuit claiming that the defendants Rodin & Co., Inc. (« Rodin ») et Southern California Painting, Inc. . .