Construction Employers Beware: New, Easier Union Representation Process
October 17, 2023 —
Natale V. DiNatale - Robinson+ColeThis week we are pleased to have a guest post by Robinson+Cole Labor Relations Group chair Natale V. DiNatale.
The NLRB has reversed decades of precedent and made it far easier for unions to represent employees, including construction employers, without a secret ballot election. Initially, it is important to understand that this new standard applies to traditional “9(a)” relationships, not prehire agreements under 8(f) of the NLRA. While both types of relationships exist in the construction industry, 9(a) relationships require support from a majority of employees, while prehire agreements do not and tend to be project specific. The NLRB’s new standard (announced in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 130 (2023)) emphasizes union authorization cards that are gathered by union officials and union activists who often employ high-pressure tactics to obtain a signature. Employees often sign authorization cards without the benefit of understanding the significance of the cards. Even if they don’t want a union, they may sign because they feel pressured by a coworker, don’t want to offend a colleague, or want to avoid being bothered.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Natale V. DiNatale, Robinson+ColeMr. DiNatale may be contacted at
ndinatale@rc.com
Three lawyers from Haight were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition
September 30, 2019 —
William G. Baumgaertner, Michael Leahy, & Denis Moriarty - Haight Brown & BonesteelCongratulations to Haight’s attorneys who were recognized in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 Edition
Los Angeles, California
William G. Baumgaertner for personal injury and product liability litigation for plaintiffs and defendants
Michael Leahy for insurance law
Denis Moriarty for insurance law
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel attorneys
William G. Baumgaertner,
Michael Leahy and
Denis J. Moriarty
Mr. Baumgaertner may be contacted at wbaum@hbblaw.com
Mr. Leahy may be contacted at mleahy@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at dmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contract Change #9: Owner’s Right to Carry Out the Work (law note)
March 28, 2018 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaIn prior versions of the General Conditions, if a contractor defaulted and the Owner (after giving notice) opted to cure by carrying out the work itself, an appropriate Change Order would be issued. However,
a Change Order is a contract that requires an agreement by both the Owner and Contractor, and, obviously, Contractors were reluctant to agree that they were in default and responsible for a deductive change order.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey Brumback, Construction Law in North Carolina
Cutting the Salt Out: Tips for Avoiding Union Salting Charges
January 10, 2018 —
Wally Zimolong - Zimolong LLCThe strategy to avoid union salts is rather simple. But, simplicity does not mean easy. The process requires discipline. A salt is a paid union organizer that attempts to gain employment with a non-union employer for the purpose of either (a) organizing the employers workforce or (b) bringing a costly unfair labor practice charge for discriminatory hiring practices.
A “covert salt” is someone who conceals his union affiliation in order to gain employment with a non-union employer for the purpose of starting a union organizing campaign. Actually, conceal is an understatement. Covert salts actively lie to gain employment with a non-union employer. Covert salts apply for jobs under false names, social security numbers, and use bogus resumes.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Builders Beware: A New Class Of Defendants In Asbestos Lawsuits
January 06, 2016 —
David J. Byassee, Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP & Timothy A. Gravitt, Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLPResidential, commercial and industrial builders face new and potentially significant liability for construction activities that took place in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s: personal injury lawsuits filed by construction workers from exposure to building products containing asbestos. After emptying the pockets of manufacturers and suppliers of raw asbestos and asbestos-containing products over the last 20 years, plaintiff lawyers are beginning to set their sights on a new class of defendants in asbestos litigation: residential, commercial and industrial builders who unknowingly allowed asbestos-containing products to be incorporated into their projects.
The men and women who have been involved in the building industry for 40 years or more may remember the subject of asbestos surfacing in the 1970s with the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). At that point builders were just beginning to learn that asbestos was a component of some building materials, and the potential risk of cancer presented by asbestos was being debated in scientific and medical journals. Although the use of building materials containing asbestos was mostly phased out by the 1980s, the health risks associated with exposure to asbestos continue – and in fact increase – for the duration of an exposed person’s life.
Today it is generally accepted that exposure to asbestos increases the risk of developing asbestosis and certain kinds of cancer, including mesothelioma. Cancers associated with exposure to asbestos are typically diagnosed at least 15 years (and sometimes up to 50 years) after a person’s exposure to asbestos, meaning that exposures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s might not manifest in disease until now. The class of persons who may be at risk for asbestos-related disease is long and varied: insulators, HVAC installers, pipe fitters, plumbers, drywall installers, painters, plasterers and roofers, to name a few. Long-term exposure history, coupled with the theory that “each and every” exposure during a lifetime is a substantial factor increasing the risk of developing cancer, presents potential liability to builders acting as general contractors and/or property owners, as well as the usual defendants in asbestos lawsuits, which include manufacturers, suppliers, and users of asbestos-containing materials.
In recent years, plaintiff lawyers have set their sights on builders as the financial wherewithal of traditional asbestos defendants has dried up. Plaintiff lawyers have created a new theory of liability which they use to rope builders in as defendants in asbestos lawsuits: that the builder knew – or should have known – that a deadly ingredient (asbestos) was contained in the building materials used in construction, and the builder failed to warn its subcontractors or anyone else on the project that exposure to asbestos could harm them.
Builders have unique legal defenses to claims brought by employees of subcontractors who have developed asbestos-related disease. For example, the California Supreme Court in Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689, held that an injured employee of a subcontractor cannot maintain a claim against the hirer (builder) for the employee’s injury absent affirmative contribution on the part of the builder to the injury. Thus the first line of defense in an asbestos exposure case is to argue that the developer had no direct role in the plaintiff’s exposure to asbestos and therefore the Privette doctrine precludes the plaintiff from suing the builder. But resourceful plaintiff lawyers are coming up with arguments to get around this so-called Privette defense in asbestos lawsuits by claiming that builders’ activities such as cleanup of asbestos-containing materials, or assertion of control over the work of the subcontractor, directly contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries and therefore provide exceptions to Privette and allow the claim to proceed.
A practical question is raised in asbestos cases: How is a plaintiff able to prove, decades after working on a project, what building materials contained asbestos, or that a builder knew or should have known in the 1960s, 1970s or 1980s that asbestos-containing materials were used on their project, or that asbestos presented a health risk? To answer the first part of the question (what building materials contained asbestos), plaintiff’s experts will say that during the relevant timeframe asbestos was a common ingredient in many building products, e.g., drywall joint compounds, stucco/plaster/gun cement, acoustic ceiling products, cement pipe, insulation, roofing mastic, caulk and plumber’s putty; this can be further proven by reference to product manufacturers’ disclosures made pursuant to the Asbestos Information Act. Also, through the decades of asbestos litigation against product manufacturers and suppliers, resourceful plaintiff lawyers have developed vast banks of data and documentation identifying the manufacturers of asbestos-containing building products, the end-users of those products, and the projects where those products were supplied. With this bank of knowledge, all that is necessary for them to make the claim against a builder is to have the plaintiff identify a construction project where he or she remembers working during the relevant timeframe. Once that identification is made, it is a simple matter for the lawyers to dig and find out who developed the building/project, who then becomes a defendant in an asbestos lawsuit.
The answer to the second part of the question (whether the developer knew or should have known that the products brought to their projects contained asbestos) requires a detailed investigation into the dates at which the products were supplied to the project, the manufacturer of the product, and what information was available in the market place about the material content of the particular product.
The answer to the third part of the question (knowledge that asbestos presented a health risk) is trickier. One of the first standards set by OSHA in 1972 related to permissible levels of exposure to asbestos. It is a common tactic for plaintiff lawyers to argue that the existence of OSHA standards created a presumption of knowledge in the building industry about the dangers of asbestos. But what about pre-OSHA knowledge? Here plaintiff lawyers will argue that well before OSHA, going back as far as 1936, exposure to asbestos was regulated in California under General Industry Safety Orders relating to Dusts, Fumes, Mists, Vapors and Gases. They argue that the General Industry Safety Orders put builders “on notice” of the dangers of asbestos by virtue of being regulated by the State of California, and, by extension, builders had “knowledge” of the health risks associated with asbestos.
There are defenses that skilled defense counsel can utilize to defeat asbestos claims, assuming the Privette defense is not available. The first is to thoroughly investigate and evaluate all of the plaintiff’s potential exposures to asbestos throughout his entire lifetime, and identify those sources that likely were the major contributors to his disease. Next, counsel has to properly investigate the project at which the plaintiff is alleged to have been exposed to asbestos, identify all of the possible sources of exposure, i.e., the products that were used or might have been used at the project, and finally how the plaintiff was allegedly exposed at the project. As most builders do not maintain records of what products were used in their projects dating back 15 years or more, let alone the identities of the trades that worked on the projects, knowledgeable defense counsel can be a valuable partner in unearthing the brands of products typically in use in the locale where the construction took place, and identifying the manufacturers of those products. Defense counsel must analyze the frequency, duration, proximity and intensity of the exposure, as well as the type of asbestos the plaintiff was allegedly exposed to (not all asbestos is created equal – some types are more toxic than others). This will involve careful evaluation of the levels of exposure created by the alleged activity of the builder, to determine, through experts and a thorough understanding of the scientific and medical studies on the subject, whether the levels of asbestos exposure created by the activity could be considered a “substantial factor” in contributing to the risk of the plaintiff’s development of his asbestos-related disease.
Asbestos lawsuits present a significant risk to the unsuspecting and unprepared builder. Money damages available to a plaintiff are substantial. Medical expenses for treatment of asbestos-related disease typically run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, lost income (including retirement benefits) can also be significant, and jury awards for pain, suffering and emotional distress can be staggering - often millions of dollars. In some cases punitive damages are even awarded.
The bottom line is that a builder runs a big risk if it treats an asbestos claim like any other claim. The level of analysis and investigation to properly defend against the claim requires prompt action by knowledgeable counsel, and frequently there is no insurance coverage.
David J. Byassee is an attorney with the firm
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP, and is a litigator who has devoted nearly a decade to representation of real estate developers and builders. He can be reached at: dbyassee@bremerwhyte.com.
Timothy A. Gravitt is an attorney with the firm
Ulich, Ganion, Balmuth, Fisher & Feld, LLP who is devoted to defending real estate developers and builders in a variety of litigation. He can be reached at: tgravitt@ulichlaw.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Estoppel Certificate? Estop and Check Your Lease
May 06, 2019 —
Lauren Podgorski - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogIf you are leasing space in a building, there may come a time when you receive a request from your landlord to fill out and sign an estoppel certificate. Estoppel certificates are usually sent to tenants in connection with the sale or refinance of a building, and a third party may rely on the accuracy of the statements and information contained in the estoppel certificate in connection with that transaction. Estoppel certificates can range from a very simple, one-page document, to several pages.
I’ve received an estoppel certificate in the mail. What do I do now?
Consider the following:
Check your lease. Your lease may require you to deliver the signed estoppel certificate and may even give you a timeframe within which you are required to return it. A form of estoppel certificate may also be included in your lease as an exhibit. If you’ve previously agreed to a form of estoppel certificate in your lease, check to ensure the one you have received matches the form you previously agreed to and if it doesn’t make sure to review it carefully to make sure it is acceptable.
Review the estoppel certificate and confirm that all of the information is accurate. Be on the lookout for any terms or provisions that you did not agree to in your lease. If it seems like the landlord is trying to modify your lease, you likely do not need to consent to the change in this document. Cross off (or modify or delete, if you have an electronic copy) any information that is inaccurate. Fill in all blanks (if the blank is not applicable, write “N/A”), and if any exhibits are referenced in the body of the document, make sure they are actually attached.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lauren Podgorski, Snell & WilmerMs. Podgorski may be contacted at
lpodgorski@swlaw.com
A Community Constantly on the Brink of Disaster
February 06, 2023 —
Jason Daniel Feld - Kahana FeldIn the beautiful coastline region along the famous Pacific Coast Highway between Ventura and Santa Barbara rests the small cottage town of La Conchita. With unobstructed ocean views, this community is only 820 feet wide on a narrow strip of land abutting a 590 feet high cliffside bluff. The bluff has a slope of approximately 35 degrees and consists of poorly cemented marine sediments. This is the perfect recipe for constant disaster from a geological perspective and the site of several major landslides that have devastated this community. Geologic evidence indicates that landslides, which are part of the larger Rincon Mountain slides, have been occurring at and near La Conchita for many thousands of years up to the present with reported landslides beginning as early as 1865. In both 1889 and 1909, the
Southern Pacific Rail Line
running along the coast was inundated. In the 1909 slide, a train was buried. Since that time, other slides have occurred, covering at times cultivated land, roadways, and the community itself. The two most devastating landslides occurred in 1995 and 2005.
1995 Landslide
From October 1994-March 1995, there was double the amount of seasonal rainfall for the area – in excess of 30 inches. The slide occurred on March 3, 1995, when surface cracks in the upper part of the slope opened on the hillside, and
surface runoff was infiltrating into the subsurface. The heavy rains essentially saturated the slope causing a massive slide. On March 4, 1995, the hill behind La Conchita failed, moving tens of meters in minutes, and buried nine homes with no loss of life. The
County of Ventura immediately declared the whole community a
Geological Hazard Area, imposing building restrictions on the community to restrict new construction. On March 10, 1995, a subsequent debris flow from a canyon to the northwest damaged five additional houses in the northwestern part of La Conchita. In total, the slide measured approximately 390 feet wide, 1080 feet long and 98 feet deep. The deposit covered approximately 9.9 acres, and the volume was estimated to be approximately 1.7 million cubic yards of sediment. The devastation was immeasurable and the damage to homes, property and infrastructure was in the millions of dollars to repair. Litigation quickly arose following the 1995 slide with seventy-one homeowners suing the La Conchita Ranch Co. in Bateman v. La Conchita Ranch Co. The judge ruled that irrigation was not the major cause of the slide and that the ranch owners were not responsible.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Daniel Feld, Kahana FeldMr. Feld may be contacted at
jfeld@kahanafeld.com
Traub Lieberman Attorneys Win Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings In Favor of Insurer
June 26, 2023 —
Jeremy S. Macklin & Danielle K. Kegley - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman Partner Jeremy Macklin and Associate Danielle Kegley obtained judgment on the pleadings in favor of Admiral Insurance Company (“Admiral”), in a matter brought before the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. In the underlying case, an injured employee sued various companies, and their agents, for injuries he sustained on a construction project. The insureds, one of the defendant companies and its employee, sought coverage for the underlying lawsuit under a professional liability policy issued to that company by Admiral. The policy at issue provided coverage for the company and its employees, for negligent acts or omissions committed in the rendering of “professional services,” defined as services “involving specialized training and skill while in the pursuit of” mechanical and process engineering.
After initially defending the insureds, Admiral filed a declaratory judgment action asking the Court to declare that the company has no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in the underlying lawsuit and to allow Admiral to immediately withdraw its defense of the insureds. Admiral argued there is no coverage under the professional liability policy, as the underlying lawsuit does not contain allegations that the underlying plaintiff’s injuries arose from the rendering of or failure to render “professional services.” The insureds argued that since they were hired as mechanical and process engineers for the project, that any lawsuits against them must necessarily arise from their “professional services.” Further, the insureds asked the Court to disregard the express allegations in the underlying lawsuit concerning their role on the project as a general contractor.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jeremy S. Macklin, Traub Lieberman and
Danielle K. Kegley, Traub Lieberman
Mr. Macklin may be contacted at jmacklin@tlsslaw.com
Ms. Kegley may be contacted at dkegley@tlsslaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
