Clayco, Painters Local 2 Play High Stakes “Chicken”

What began as a low six-figure dispute over money between Painters Local 2 and Clayco escalated into a high-stakes game of "chicken" last week that left industry association executives and labor experts wringing their hands and scratching their heads.

The imbroglio began with a lawsuit over fringe benefits for glaziers on the CityPlace Six building in Creve Coeur, which was completed in 2006. Clayco hired Pal's Glass of Wichita, KS, which didn't have a union contract in St. Louis. Pal's subcontracted the work to Brentwood Glass Co., which subsequently filed for bankruptcy. 

In 2008, Brentwood filed suit in St. Louis County Circuit Court, seeking to recover about $175,000, plus claims for extras which have ranged during the life of the suit from around $400,000 to more $1,000,000. The glaziers subsquently joined Brentwood in the suit to protect the fringe benefits associated with Brentwood's claims, but were removed from the suit by the court. John Goffstein, attorney for the glaziers, then became Brentwood’s co-counsel

Two weeks ago, Local 2 Business Manager Joe Barrett ordered his members to begin "bannering" Clayco jobs around town. The painters displayed banners stating that Clayco was unfair to union labor. In response, Bob Clark, CEO of Clayco, began to pull his contracts with contractors employing Local 2 glaziers and painters. The St. Louis Business Journal reported that Clark was weighing his options, including hiring non-union painters on his company's current St. Louis projects.

Clark sent an email to union officials which stated, “The (painters) union is supporting directly and indirectly a lawsuit without merit that has changed numerous times to try and shakedown Clayco to pay fabricated, unsubstantiated, and after the fact claims for extra work in order to satisfy a judgment that the Glaziers have against Brentwood Glass. Again, as stated above, this dispute has nothing to do with any actions Clayco did or did not do with the unions.”

Neither Clark nor Barrett returned calls from CNR. Representatives of contractor associations affected by the case were attempting throughout last week to mitigate collateral damage from the disupte. A labor attorney familiar with the parties said that the union was legally within its rights, but that the move by Barrett did not seem to make any financial sense. Clayco, the attorney said, would be able based on its history in other markets to work non-union, but might have to contend with increased costs from issues related to project continuity, communication, disruptions, and customer reactions.

Columns