April 23, 2014

Michigan's Second Project Labor Agreements (PLA) Law Also Pre-empted by NLRA

Back in July, we told you about Michigan's second stab at putting limits on the use of Project Labor Agreements (PLA) in the state.  Michigan's first PLA-limiting law was blocked by a federal court ruling that the subject area covered by the PLA law was pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act.

Late last week, a federal court judge in Michigan called strike two on the state finding the revised version of the PLA bill also was pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act.

The law, entitled the Michigan Fair and Open Competition in Government Construction Act, would have barred local communities from entering into contracts (PLAs) which required bidders, contractors and subcontractors to adhere to the terms of or become signatories to collective bargaining agreements for work on that particular project.  The Court applied the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Garmon which concluded that the right to enter into PLAs is a right protected by Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA. 

We'll continue to monitor this -- and the previous case -- as they go through the appellate system. 


About the Author

Gerald Lutkus, Labor and Employment Attorney, Barnes Thornburg, Law Firm

Gerald F. (“Jerry”) Lutkus is a partner in the South Bend office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP where he is a member of the firm’s Labor and Employment Law and Litigation Departments. He practices in the areas of labor and employment law counseling and litigation, arbitration, collective bargaining, media law, including counseling of and defense litigation for media companies and commercial and business litigation.


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.