Class Action Looks to Halt Project Labor Agreement Between Pittsburgh Suburb, Western Penn. Union

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action aims to halt the Pittsburgh suburb of Plum Borough from enforcing an allegedly “exclusionary and anti-competitive” project labor agreement with the Pittsburgh Regional Building Trades Council.

According to the 22-page complaint, the borough’s project labor agreement is harmful to workers in that it disqualifies businesses from receiving contracts or subcontracts for construction work unless they recognize a union affiliated with the Pittsburgh Regional Building Trades Council as the exclusive representative of their employees, even if a contractor’s workers have chosen not to unionize or if they have chosen different union representation.

Moreover, the agreement, a mandatory union collective-bargaining deal that all contractors must sign to work on a public works project, “compels” the borough’s contractors and subcontractors to use employees referred by those unions on construction work performed for Plum Borough, the case claims. The foregoing effectively precludes non-union craftsmen from working on borough construction projects unless they join, pay or associate with a union that falls under the Pittsburgh Regional Building Trades Council’s umbrella, and compels workers to contribute to an affiliate union’s pension and healthcare funds and operate within the union’s rules and employment procedures, the complaint says.

The plaintiffs, non-union Western Pennsylvania contractors who filed the suit alongside the Associated Builders & Contractors of Western Pennsylvania (ABC), argue the borough’s project labor agreement violates the rights of contractors and their employees under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the National Labor Relations Act, as well as federal antitrust and state competitive bidding laws.

“The plaintiffs sue on behalf of every non-union contractor and non-union employee who wishes to work on the borough’s construction projects, and they seek damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief against the continued enforcement of the borough’s project labor agreement,” the suit reads. 

The lawsuit says a project labor agreement will often force participating contractors to:

• Recognize certain unions as the exclusive representative of their employees;
• Require employees who work on public works projects to become dues-paying members of those unions as a condition of continued employment;
• Contribute to the union’s pension and healthcare funds;
• Operate in accordance with the union’s work rules; and
• Follow the union’s protocols for hiring, firing and disciplining employees on public works projects.

According to the case, 25 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin—ban the use of project labor agreements.

Plum Borough’s project labor agreement applies to the borough’s “onsite construction work,” the suit says. Per the lawsuit, only contractors and subcontractors who agree to the terms of the project labor agreement with the Pittsburgh Regional Building Trades Council are eligible to perform work for the borough.

Those who sign on are compelled by the project labor agreement to recognize a union that belongs to the Pittsburgh Regional Building Trades Council as the “sole and exclusive bargaining representatives of all craft employees within their respective jurisdictions working on the Project,” the complaint relays. Further, the agreement, the case says, requires contractors and subcontractors to hire their employees through the unions’ referral system, which the lawsuit alleges effectively precludes non-union workers, or those who belong to unions other than those affiliated with the Pittsburgh Regional Building Trades Council, from performing onsite construction work for Plum Borough. 

Though a “narrow” exception exists in the project labor agreement when it comes to the requirement for contractors to hire employees through the affiliated unions’ job referral system, the provision allows non-union contractors, and union and non-union businesses owned by minorities and women, to use “core employees” only for “a small subset of the available jobs” as long as they fill the remaining roles with referrals from the union hiring halls, the lawsuit says. 

The lawsuit looks to cover a class comprised of all contractors who are (a) non-union or who maintain collective-bargaining agreements with unions who are not members of the Pittsburgh Regional Building Trades Council; and (b) would have applied, or would be likely to apply in the reasonably foreseeable future, for onsite construction work from Plum Borough in the absence of the project labor agreement. The suit estimates the size of the class at between 50 to 70 contractors. 

Additionally, the suit seeks to cover a class that includes all employees who (a) are non-union or belong to unions who are not members of the Pittsburgh Regional Building Trades Council; and (b) would have sought, or would be likely to seek in the reasonably foreseeable future, onsite construction work from Plum Borough in the absence of the project labor agreement. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.