On August 7, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an opinion in Laborers District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota v. NLRB, denying the petition for review by the Laborers District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota (Union) and granting the NLRB's cross-petition to enforce its decision and order. The key issues in the case were whether:

The Union entered into a pre-hire agreement with a multi-employer group, the Associated General Contractors of Minnesota, as permitted in the construction industry by Section 8(f) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(f)). The agreement provided that participating employers must sublet or contract laborers' work only to subcontractors who have labor agreements with the Union.

Century Fence Company, a nonunion contractor that employs no laborers, bid on and was awarded fencing contracts and subcontracts for both union and nonunion projects in Minnesota. When working on projects awarded to general contractors subject to pre-hire agreements, Century used union-affiliated subcontractors. Starting in 2007, the Union began exerting pressure on Century, telling the company that if it refused to sign a union contract, the Union would not sign or renew Section 8(f) agreements with subcontractors that did business with Century. Century rejected the Union's demand.

Century filed a Section 8(b)(4) unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB when the Union refused to renew Section 8(f) CBAs with two of Century's subcontractors. Section 8(b)(4) of the NLRA in part provides that labor organizations may not threaten, coerce or restrain with the object of forcing or requiring any person to cease doing business with another (29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)). The Union settled the charge by agreeing that it would not refuse to sign an agreement with the subcontractors or other subcontractors of Century to force them to stop doing business with Century.

In 2010, a subcontractor, Lake Area Fence, Inc., met with Union representatives and signed the pre-hire agreement subject to the Union's approval. When the Union discovered that Lake Area intended to work with Century, however, it notified Lake Area that it would not sign the agreement, citing incomplete information.

In response, Lake Area filed an unfair labor practice charge under Section 8(b)(4). In its charge, Lake Area argued that the Union's true purpose in refusing to execute the agreement was to pressure Century into signing a union contract.

Following an evidentiary hearing, an NLRB administrative law judge (ALJ):

The panel (Board) heading the NLRB's judicial functions affirmed the ALJ's findings and adopted the cease-and-desist order, with Member Becker dissenting. The Union appealed.

The US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the Board's decision and granted the Board's cross-petition to enforce the cease-and-desist order.

The Eighth Circuit rejected the Union's argument that the Board's order that the union cease and desist order violated the Union's freedom of contract, finding that:

The Union also argued that its choice not to enter into a contract with Lake Area was not coercive since:

The court dismissed the arguments, finding that:

The Eighth Circuit's decision affirms the Board's conclusion that a union may violate Section 8(b(4) not only by refusing to renew a Section 8(f) CBA, but also by refusing to enter into an initial Section 8(f) CBA with a company. There must be evidence of unlawful intent and economically significant effects of that refusal. Although a union retains the freedom to execute Section 8(f) CBAs with contractors and subcontractors, that freedom will not serve as an automatic defense to charges alleging violations of Section 8(b)(4).