Local Union No. 9, Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Adesta, LLC

587 F.Supp.3d 704

LOCAL UNION NO. 9, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, Plaintiff,

v.ADESTA, LLC, and G4S Secure Integration, LLC, Defendants.

No. 21 C 6066

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed February 25, 2022

Ryan A. Hagerty, Matthew Pierce, Naomi B. Frisch, Asher, Gittler & D'Alba, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

James M. Hux, Jr., Fisher & Phillips LLP, Jessica Eunseon Chang, Monica Hersh Khetarpal, Jackson Lewis P.C., Chicago, IL, Kelly Elisabeth Eisenlohr-Moul, Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Defendants.

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Elaine E. Bucklo, United States District Judge

On October 4, 2021, Local Union No. 9, International Brotherhood of Electrical workers (the "Union") filed an action in the Circuit Court of Cook County alleging that defendants violated the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, 820 ILCS § 130/1, et seq. ("IPWA") by failing to pay employees the Union represents at rates equal to or exceeding rates the statute establishes for work performed on public works projects. Defendants removed the action to this court on the ground that the Union's claims, though facially arising under state law, invokes rights arising out of a collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA") governing the parties’ relationship and is thus completely preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Defendants then filed a motion captioned, "Motion to Dismiss Consistent with Rule 12(b)(1)," in which they argue that dismissal is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. 12(b)(6) because plaintiff failed to exhaust the grievance procedures set forth in the CBA. The Union, for its part, filed a motion to remand the case, arguing that its claims are grounded exclusively in state law and require no analysis of any rights or procedures set forth in any collective bargaining agreement. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion is granted, and defendant's motion is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In general, "[t]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams , 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). All agree that plaintiff's complaint makes no reference to the LMRA or to any collective bargaining agreement, so the question is whether its claims "really" arise under a labor contract. Crosby v. Cooper B-Line, Inc. , 725 F.3d 795, 797 (7th Cir. 2013). If they do, then the "complete preemption" doctrine—an " ‘independent corollary’ to the well pleaded complaint rule"— "sweeps away" plaintiff's state-law theory and "re-classifies" the Union's claims as arising under the LMRA. Id. at 800. To determine whether this is the case, I "look beyond the face of plaintiff's allegations and the labels used to describe [its] claims" and evaluate their substance. Id.

Here, plaintiff alleges that employees it represents performed work for defendants under the classifications "electric power lineman" and "electric power lineman-foreman" on public works projects governed by contracts and/or subcontracts between defendants, on the one hand, and the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, Commonwealth Edison ("a public utility"), and "various other state and local entities," on the other. Compl. at ¶¶ 21-22. Plaintiffs allege that these contracts "contain Illinois prevailing wage stipulations" that required defendants to pay "the prevailing wage rates" published by the Illinois Department of Labor ("IDOL"). Id. at ¶ 23. Indeed, the complaint includes a link to IDOL's website, which identifies the prevailing rates for "Electric Power Lineman" and "Electric Power Lineman – Foreman" for counties throughout the state. Id. at ¶ 25.

The complaint alleges that from at least 2016 through the present, defendants paid Union employees less than the prevailing rates published by IDOL for their positions in Cook County at various times in violation of the IPWA. The complaint does not reference any rights or obligations contained in any agreement between the parties, and nothing its allegations supports defendants’ characterization of it as a "sneaky attempt to make an end run around established federal labor law precedents in this Court and Circuit." Def.’s Reply ISO Mot. to Dismiss. Defendants underscore that the prevailing rates published by IDOL for the positions at...