Labor — single employer doctrine

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Civil

Labor — single employer doctrine

Where the management of a union company created a separate entity to serve customers who prefer non-union labor, the two companies were properly found to be a “single employer.”

“In sum, we agree with the district court’s conclusion that, ‘for all practical purposes, the Companies function as a single entity.’ While the distinction between the ‘union’ and ‘nonunion’ market is useful, the bottom line reason Lippert Group and DeanAlan were created was to increase the Lippert brothers’ share of the tile installation market in the four-county Greater Milwaukee area by providing the same service at lower prices, just as any single company might attempt to capture a greater share of the market by reducing prices. Of course, we express no opinion whatsoever on whether this type of double-breasting practice was a violation of the CBA, because that was a merits determination by the JAC. And we certainly express no opinion as to whether this practice is good or bad. But solely for purposes of deciding whether the JAC had the power to decide whether their double-breasting practice was a violation of the CBA and issue a binding arbitration award, we find, under the ‘single employer’ doctrine, that it did.”

Affirmed.

12-2658 Lippert Tile Co., Inc. v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Adelman, J., Williams, J.