New England Carpenters Collective Bargaining Agreement

Assuming deklewa applies to the agreement between Labonte Drywall and the Union, the applicants` argument9 fails because Labonte Drywall did not « unilaterally reject » its obligations under the collective agreement. Instead, Labonte Drywall ended its collective negotiations with the UNION on the basis of the agreed whistleblowing provision of the national agreement. The Union was a signatory to the national agreement and is subject to its commercial terms which gave Labonte Drywall the power to terminate the contract before the expiry date of the collective agreement on 31 August 2009. Therefore, the termination of Labonte Drywall cannot be considered « unilateral. » Given that Labonte Drywall`s agreement to comply with the terms and obligations of the collective agreement was included only by reference to the national agreement and that Labonte Drywall`s national termination of the contract came into effect on April 3, 2007, the company was not required to submit applications to applicants until August 31, 2009.10 Applicants « are not authorized to enforce a non-existent contractual obligation. » « 11 DeVito v. Hempstead China Shop, Inc., 38 F.3d 651, 654 (2d Cir.1994) (quote from Teamsters Indus. I said that. Welfare Fund v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Inc., 989 F.2d 132, 138 (3d Cir.1993).12 Complainants argue that although the letter of April 3, 2007 terminated Labonte Drywall`s obligations under the collective agreement, they are still entitled to review Labonte Drywall`s recordings until August 31, 2009. This argument is based on the applicants` belief that Labonte Drywall`s termination under the collective agreement was not effective until that date. The applicants then referred the matter to the ERISA and Labor Management Relations Act (« LMRA ») District Court, 29 U.S.C No. 141-87, to require the Drywall Labonte review to review its salary and working documents for the period from January 1, 2007 to August 31, 2011. After a day of bank trials, the regional court ruled in favour of Labonte Drywall. See New Eng.

Carpenter`s penny. Collection Agency v. Labonte Drywall Co., No. 12-10734-RGS, 2014 WL 2566136, at `5 (D. Mass. June 5, 2014). The court paid tribute to Dany Labonte`s statement that « the letter of April 3, 2007 was sent to Donohue and was intended to terminate in writing the agreement between the Union and Labonte [Drywall]. » Id. at 4. The court found that « Dany Labonte`s secular choice [in the letter] was so clear that at least one reactive investigation was requested by the Union or the [f] ets. The two companies have done nothing about it. Although the letter was addressed to the staff of the Donohue agency, the regional court decided that the Union had indeed been informed of the letter. See id.

As the tariff relationship ended, the Tribunal concluded that « the applicants were not entitled to a review of Labonte [Drywall`s] pay slip for the period from January 1, 2007 to August 31, 2011. » Id. at 5. Labonte Drywall`s verdict was filed and the complainants appealed in time. In February 2010, the Labonte Drywall Agency announced that an audit would be conducted for the period from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009 (« Audit 2010 »). Two months later, in April, the agency`s advisor, Christopher Souris, sent a letter to Clermont Labonte requesting that Labonte Drywall cooperate with the 2010 review.