Lieberman v. Cook, Civ. A. No. 71-829.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1972
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 71-829.
• Citation: 343 F. Supp. 558
• Parties: Milton H. LIEBERMAN v. Joseph COOK et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

343 F. Supp. 558

Milton H. LIEBERMAN v. Joseph COOK et al.

Civ. A. No. 71-829.

United States District Court, W. D. Pennsylvania.

June 6, 1972.

George Raynovich, Jr., Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Edward Goldberg, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

KNOX, District Judge.

In this suit to recover amounts allegedly due under an Employees Profit-Sharing Plan, defendants have presented a Motion For Summary Judgment. Defendants present two defenses which are in the opinion of the court valid. First, that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act 29 U.S.C. 301 et seq. Second, that defendants are entitled to judgment on the merits because plaintiff has already pursued his remedies through common law arbitration and is not entitled to a second bite at the apple. There is no diversity of citizenship.

Plaintiff sued defendants as trustees of a profit-sharing plan and trust agreement covering the employees of Standard Sportswear, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and also the corporation itself, viz: Standard Sportswear, Inc. The plan was adopted December 29, 1961, and copies thereof are among the materials now before the court. Plaintiff is a former employee of defendant Standard Sportswear, Inc. and participated in the plan from its inception until May 1971 when he was involuntarily terminated from his employment.

Plaintiff at once employed counsel who, by letter dated May 11, 1971, requested a copy of the plan. By reply, dated May 18, 1971, a copy of the plan was furnished to plaintiff's counsel.

Under Article XII of the plan, arbitration was provided with respect to disputes arising thereunder. Plaintiff at once resorted to arbitration on May 27, 1971. Arbitrators were appointed and thereafter on August 30, 1971, rendered their decision that plaintiff's employment with Standard Sportswear, Inc. had been terminated with cause and therefore plaintiff's rights in the fund were terminated under the provisions of Section 9.2(c) of the plan.¹

Plaintiff, without resorting to any of the narrow Pennsylvania grounds for attacking an arbitrator's award under these circumstances, then commenced two court proceedings: (1) A suit in assumpsit in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania at No. 1842 October Term 1971, against the same defendants as named in this action. In this action on May 4, 1972, the Honorable Gwilym A. Price, Jr. ordered summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the grounds that under the clause in the agreement the award of arbitrators "shall be final and binding upon all the parties in interest".² (2) Plaintiff also brought suit in this court claiming a violation of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act of 1958 as amended (29 U.S.C. 301 et seq). Plaintiff also claims a pendent cause of action under state law for breach of contract, although the complaint contains only one count.

There are presently three questions before this court: (1) Does this court have jurisdiction in view of defendants' claim that less than 25 employees were covered by the plan described within the exemption provided in Section 4(b) (4) (29 U.S.C. 303)? (2) Does a private individual have a cause of action under circumstances of this kind under the provisions of the Welfare and Pensions Plan Disclosure Act? (3) Should Summary Judgment be entered in favor of the defendant by reason of the common law arbitration award in defendant's favor?

(1) Plan not covered by act. Defendant's first contention is that the plan in question is not covered by the act. 29 U.S.C. 303(b) provides "this chapter shall not apply to an employee welfare or pension benefit plan if—4. Such plan does not cover more than 25 participants". (As amended March 20, 1962, 76 Stat. 35).

We are not impressed with defendant's position that this plan never covered more than 25 participants. The depositions of defendant Hoffman, one of the trustees, at pages 35 and 36 indicates that during the fiscal year beginning February 1, 1970, there were 26 members in the plan. The act is not clear just when the 25 participant test is to be met, whether at the inception of the plan or at any time during its effectiveness. We believe that Congress never intended an absurd result such as would be permitted if a plan were adopted covering 20 members and three days later was expanded to cover 100 members and yet be exempt from the act. It must be that a plan comes under the act as soon as 26 participants are included.

It will be noted that the Act as originally enacted in 1958 excluded plans covering "not more than 25 employees". In 1962, Section 4 was amended to change the word "employees" to "participants" so that 29 U.S.C. 303(b) reads as it now stands today.³ Referring back to Section 3, 29 U.S.C. 302(a), the term "participant" is defined as follows:

"The term `participant' means any employee or former employee of an employer or any member of an employee organization who is or may become eligible to receive a benefit of any type from an employee welfare or pension benefit plan, or whose beneficiaries may be eligible to receive any such benefit."

It would thus appear that retirees are to be considered in determining whether the plan has more than 25 participants. For the fiscal year ending January 31, 1971, if you include a retiree and a person who died within the fiscal year you have 27 persons involved. (See Tabulation Exhibit C attached to motion.) We thus determine defendant's first objection to jurisdiction is not well taken.

(2) No cause of action under the act.

The complaint alleges that defendants "are in violation of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C.A. 301 et seq., and in default on the payment of plaintiff's vested interest in said profit sharing plan through the plaintiff." Plaintiff's whole case as set forth in the complaint is based upon an alleged cause of action under this act.

We believe defendant's position that there is no such cause of action under this act and that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is well taken. The findings and policy in Section 2 (29 U.S.C. 301) indicate that the purpose of the act is to require disclosure and reporting to participants. Under 304, the administrators are required to file copies of the plan and to give information to interested persons. Provision is made for publication of notice and filing reports and information to beneficiaries as provided under Section 307. Enforcement is provided in 29 U.S.C. 308. Here there is a criminal penalty in subsection (a); provisions for investigation of violations under subsection (d); the holding of hearings under (e); the Secretary of Labor is empowered to seek an injunction restraining violations under (f); and under (g), the United States District Courts are given jurisdiction to restrain violations.

The only provision for a private action is contained in subsections (b) and (c) of 308.⁴ In subsection b, it is provided that any administrator who fails upon written request from a participant or beneficiary to give him a copy within 30 days of a description of the plan or the annual report may, in the court's discretion, become liable to any participant for $50 per day from the date of such failure or refusal. In subsection (c), provision is made for an action to recover such liability in a court of competent jurisdiction. We are not in the instant case confronted with a claim to recover the $50 daily penalty and it is questionable whether any such action would lie since, from the material submitted to us, it appears that the plaintiff on May 7, 1971, requested a copy of the plan and the same reached his attorney on May 21, 1971, within the 30 day period.

We agree with defendant that the purpose of the act is to secure disclosure and reporting with respect to welfare and pension plans and that it was not intended to transfer to the federal courts general jurisdiction over the administration of such plans and adjudication of amounts due various beneficiaries. The general supervision of the administration of the plans remains where it always was, viz: in the state courts of appropriate jurisdiction and suit to obtain payment of monies allegedly due a beneficiary must be brought in the appropriate state court unless there is diversity jurisdiction (which there is not here) and an amount involved over $10,000 when it is possible that suit might lie in the federal courts.

The precise question has not been often adjudicated. However, in Moyer v. Kirkpatrick, 265 F.Supp. 348 (E.D.Pa. 1967), Judge Luongo in the Eastern District stated: "The legislative history discloses that the aim of the Act was narrow, that Congress intended to confine it to a disclosure and reporting function. * * * In light of the restricted aim of the Act, I do not believe that Congress intended, by its enactment, to confer upon the courts broad regulatory power over the operation of welfare funds". This decision was affirmed per curiam by our Court of Appeals in 387 F.2d 955 (3d cir. 1968). The court said:

"The District Court dismissed the Complaint for

...