home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Shareware Overload Trio 2
/
Shareware Overload Trio Volume 2 (Chestnut CD-ROM).ISO
/
dir33
/
cwru_ct.zip
/
91-261.ZS
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-11-06
|
4KB
|
78 lines
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
OF THE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT v.
ASSOCIATED BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS OF
MASSACHUSETTS/RHODE ISLAND, INC., et al.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the first circuit
No. 91-261. Argued December 9, 1992-Decided March 8, 1993
Following a lawsuit over its failure to prevent the pollution of Boston
Harbor, petitioner Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
(MWRA)-the state agency that provides, inter alia, sewage services
for eastern Massachusetts-was ordered to clean up the Harbor.
Under state law, MWRA provides the funds for construction, owns
the sewage-treatment facilities to be built, establishes all bid
conditions, decides all contract awards, pays the contractors, and
generally supervises the project. Petitioner Kaiser Engineers, Inc.,
the project manager selected by MWRA, negotiated an agreement
with petitioner Building and Construction Trades Council and
affiliated organizations (BCTC) that would assure labor stability over
the life of the project, and MWRA directed in Specification 13.1 of its
solicitation for project bids that each successful bidder must agree to
abide by the labor agreement's terms. Respondent organization,
which represents nonunion construction industry employers, filed
suit against petitioners, seeking, among other things, to enjoin
enforcement of Bid Specification 13.1 on the grounds that it is pre-
empted under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The
District Court denied the organization's motion for preliminary
injunction, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that MWRA's
intrusion into the bargaining process was pervasive and not the sort
of peripheral regulation that would be permissible under San Diego
Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, and that Bid
Specification 13.1 was pre-empted under Machinists v. Wisconsin
Employment Relations Comm'n, 427 U. S. 132, because MWRA was
regulating activities that Congress intended to be unrestricted by
governmental power.
Held: The NLRA does not pre-empt enforcement by a state authority,
acting as the owner of a construction project, of an otherwise lawful
prehire collective-bargaining agreement negotiated by private
parties. This Court has articulated two distinct NLRA pre-emption
principles: ``Garmon pre-emption'' forbids state and local regulation
of activities that are protected by 7 of the NLRA or constitute an
unfair labor practice under 8, while ``Machinists pre-emption''
prohibits state and municipal regulation of areas that have been left
to be controlled by the free play of economic forces. These pre-
emption doctrines apply only to state labor regulation, see, e.g.,
Machinists, 427 U. S., at 144. A State may act without offending
them when it acts as a proprietor and its acts therefore are not
tantamount to regulation or policymaking. Permitting States to
participate freely in the marketplace is not only consistent with
NLRA pre-emption principles generally but also, in this case,
promotes the legislative goals that animated the passage of the
NLRA's 8(e) and 8(f) exceptions regarding prehire agreements in
the construction industry. It is undisputed that the Agreement
between Kaiser and BCTC is a valid labor contract under 8(e) and
(f). In enacting the exceptions, Congress intended to accommodate
conditions specific to the construction industry, and there is no
reason to expect the industry's defining features to depend upon the
public or private nature of the entity purchasing contracting services.
Absent any express or implied indication by Congress that a State
may not manage its own property when pursuing a purely
proprietary interest such as MWRA's interest here, and where
analogous private conduct would be permitted, this Court will not
infer such a restriction. Pp. 5-14.
935 F. 2d 345, reversed and remanded.
Blackmun, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.