## Facts

- Five non-union steel erectors competed with union-signatory erectors in the greater Boston structural steel market.
- General contractors often sought bids for a combined “fabricate and erect” steel package; signatory erectors incurred higher labor costs under a union collective bargaining agreement.
- Local Union No. 7 maintained a wage-subsidy (job-targeting) program funded by paycheck deductions from union members.
- Plaintiffs alleged the subsidy program and related tactics were used with signatory contractors and an employer association to let union erectors match or undercut non-union bids and to exclude non-union firms from the market.
- Plaintiffs also alleged picketing, threats, and pressure directed at owners, developers, and general contractors to secure union-only labor and to cut off business with non-union erectors.
- Plaintiffs sued alleging Sherman Act violations, LMRA violations (including unlawful secondary activity), and state-law tort and Massachusetts Chapter 93A claims.
- The district court dismissed the state-law claims as federally preempted and later granted summary judgment to the union on the federal antitrust and LMRA claims.

## Issues

1. Whether the state-law tort and Chapter 93A claims were preempted because they challenged conduct arguably protected or prohibited by the NLRA.
2. Whether the union’s conduct, including the wage-subsidy program, fell within the statutory labor exemption to antitrust liability or instead involved a union–employer combination restraining trade.
3. Whether the record could support LMRA liability for unlawful secondary pressure on neutral parties, making summary judgment improper.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed dismissal of the state-law claims as preempted by federal labor law.
- The First Circuit reversed summary judgment for the union on the federal antitrust claims, holding disputed facts existed on whether the union combined with nonlabor groups to restrain competition.
- The First Circuit reversed summary judgment for the union on the LMRA claims, holding disputed facts existed on whether the union’s conduct constituted unlawful secondary activity.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the federal claims.

## Legal Principles

- State-law claims are preempted when they regulate conduct that is arguably protected or prohibited by NLRA §§ 7 or 8, including organizing, picketing, and bargaining-related conduct.
- The statutory labor exemption shields unions from antitrust liability when acting unilaterally in legitimate labor self-interest, but the exemption may be lost if the union combines with nonlabor groups to restrain competition in the product market.
- Whether union conduct is lawful primary activity or unlawful secondary activity under the LMRA is a fact-intensive inquiry; summary judgment is improper where the evidence permits competing inferences about purpose, targets, and effects of the union’s pressure.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that federal labor law displaced the plaintiffs’ state-law theories, but that factual disputes about alleged union–employer coordination and alleged secondary pressure required reversal of summary judgment and a remand on the federal antitrust and LMRA claims.


Am. Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Local Union No. 7, Int'l Ass'n of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental & Reinforcing Iron Workers, 536 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2008)