Rieth-Riley Construction Company, an Indiana-based firm employing 130 to 170 operating engineers in Michigan, has been locked in an eight-year labor dispute with Local 324 of the International Union of Operating Engineers that began when the union withdrew from a multiemployer agreement in 2018. The conflict has spawned multiple rounds of litigation, a continuing strike, and now three appearances before the Sixth Circuit, with the company seeking to overturn NLRB findings that it unlawfully raised wages without bargaining and refused to negotiate with the union in 2021 and 2022.
The court upheld the Board's determination that Rieth-Riley violated federal labor law by unilaterally implementing wage increases and withdrawing recognition from the union. Circuit Judge Mathis wrote that the company's attempt to justify its conduct as a 'technical refusal to bargain' to challenge dismissed decertification petitions failed because 'that dismissal just maintained the status quo; it did not result in the creation, clarification, or elimination of a bargaining obligation.'
The court was particularly critical of Rieth-Riley's waiver defense for the wage increases, finding that testimony by company executives about general compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act fell far short of the required 'clear and unequivocal notice' to the union. As Judge Mathis explained, 'such general statements, without essential details like timing and amounts, are too broad to qualify as adequate notice.'
The labor dispute traces back to May 2018, when the union informed Rieth-Riley it was withdrawing from the multiemployer Road Agreement four weeks before expiration. Employee Rayalan Kent filed a decertification petition in March 2020, but it was held in abeyance due to pending unfair labor practice charges against the company. A second petition filed in August 2020 was also dismissed in November 2020, with the votes remaining uncounted due to the ongoing litigation.
Rieth-Riley argued that the union waived its right to bargain over wage increases based on executive testimony during a 2020 NLRB hearing about Davis-Bacon Act compliance. But the court found this argument unconvincing, noting that while the federal law may set a wage floor, 'there remained plenty of room to negotiate for increases above what the statute required Rieth-Riley to pay.' The company also failed to provide specifics about timing, amounts, or allocation between wages and benefits.
The unanimous panel also rejected Rieth-Riley's claim that it could invoke the technical refusal to bargain doctrine to obtain court review of the decertification petition dismissals. Judge Mathis distinguished this case from precedents involving actual bargaining unit determinations, writing that 'the company's obligations to the Union were the same as they had been before the election and . . . it spurn[ed] those obligations,' making the firm 'guilty of an unfair labor practice.'
The court's decision enforces an NLRB order requiring Rieth-Riley to recognize and bargain in good faith with the union, cease unfair labor practices, and provide requested information. This marks the company's third unsuccessful appearance before the Sixth Circuit in this protracted dispute, which continues with the strike still ongoing after eight years.