The complainant makes our attention to our previous decision in the U.S.C.C. on the grounds that its outcome controls our immediate destination. In the United States. It .C was a contractual dispute between an office manager and an office and security contractor. The contractor brought a counter-action for breach of contract and unjust enrichment against the owners, who then invoked the summary decision by stating that they were not contracting parties and that there was no agency relationship between them and the management company. The owners argued that a provision in the management agreement expressly provided that all of the administrator`s actions were carried out as an independent contractor and that the owners were not held liable for someone retained by the administrator. See U.S.C.C., 1991 WL 274445 at `1. The CBA contains a so-called portability provision in Section 3.11, which was initially negotiated and agreed in early 1993 by NECA and INTERNATIONAL IBEW. Section 3.11 allows a contractor bound by an agreement with another local IBEW than Local 176, which works in the area covered by Local 176, to transport up to four union members from its local electricians` union to the jurisdiction of 176 to carry out the contract work, and two union members for special or service and maintenance work. This provision facilitates the tendering, planning and execution of job offers by mobile electrical operators (contractors working outside the jurisdiction of their local trade union activities). On October 3, 1997, the amp-Rite local committee permanently limited the portability of one man, which NECA recommended being controlled by CIR.

On November 17, 1997, CIR ruled that Local 176 could not use staff removal procedures under the CBA as a method of implementing previous local committee decisions. On February 12, 1998, the IRF overturned the decision of the Laboratory Management Committee on October 3 and revoked Amp-Rite`s portability rights as of March 1, 1998. In its response, NECA abandons its assertion that the IRB`s decision has an exclusive effect and instead limits its fire to the local committee`s October 1996 decision. We reaffirm our view that the IRB`s decision has no exclusive effect on this case. The local committee only considered the allegations of infringements of the carryable of the amp-Rite. The dispute between Amp-Rite and NECA is based on a totally different theory, which was not before the local committee, and NECA was not involved in this case. In fact, his involvement took place after the local commission`s decision. Therefore, the argument that Amp-Rite is calling for a review of the ECURIT decision by the Plenary Assembly is not in its place. Neca argues that it does not owe Amp-Rite obligations under Section 3.11 of the CBA (the portability provision).

Section 3.11 recognizes both NECA and IBEW the right to ask the IRB to review all potability decisions made by a local working/management committee. The explicit language of the agreement provides the measure of the NECA`s decision to recommend that the IRB review the portability decision by granting it the right to request a review of “any decision by a local management committee that may be contrary to the intent of the parties to the national agreement on employee portability.” In the count of Section 301 v NECA, Amp-Rite also complains that NECA, by taking over from the Regional Executive Director Parenti, abused its discretion by not recommending that the IRB reconsider the decision of the Working/Management Committee of 21 October 1996 limiting amp-Rite`s portability to a worker for one year. Amp-Rite asserts that Parenti did not conduct an appropriate investigation on its behalf, amp-Rite alleges that Parenti conducted four portability audits by local working and management committees, and Amp-Rite`s situation is the only one in which it failed to appoint an investigator on the field. Parenti never contacted Amp-Rite about its decision or reason that it had not made the necessary recommendation to the IRB.