UNITED BRICK & CLAY WKRS. v. INTERNATIONAL U. OF DIST. 50

Decision Date26 March 1971
Docket NumberNo. 20475.,20475.
Citation439 F.2d 311
PartiesUNITED BRICK AND CLAY WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellant, and Alton Brick Company, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Val Terschluse, St. Louis, Mo., for defendant-appellant.

Bruce S. Feldacker, Schuchat, Cook & Werner, James K. Cook, St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, GIBSON and LAY, Circuit Judges.

VAN OOSTERHOUT, Circuit Judge.

Defendant, International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers of America (District 50), has taken this timely appeal from final judgment filed July 17, 1970, sustaining plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and determining that proceedings to terminate an employees' pension trust were void and that United Brick and Clay Workers of America (Brick and Clay Workers) as successor bargaining agent of the employees has succeeded as party in interest to all rights of District 50 in the pension agreement. Defendant, Alton Brick Company, has not appealed.

The present declaratory judgment action was commenced by Brick and Clay Workers and six individual employees of Alton Brick Company on behalf of themselves and other parties similarly interested against District 50 and the Alton Brick Company. District 50 served as bargaining agent of Alton Brick Company employees from April 1963 until April 8, 1969, when the National Labor Relations Board certified that as a result of a representation election Brick and Clay Workers was chosen as the bargaining agent of the Alton Brick Company employees.

There is no dispute as to the material facts. Upon appeal, District 50 urges that the court erred in determining that the pension plan was not validly terminated and that Brick and Clay Workers should be substituted for District 50 as a party to the pension agreement.

We affirm the trial court's judgment for the reasons hereinafter stated.

Collective bargaining agreements entered into in 1963 between the Alton Brick Company and District 50 as the representative of the employees and renewals thereof provided for specified payments by Alton Brick Company into a trust fund to provide pensions for its employees. Provisions with respect to pension entitlement and computation are contained in the agreements as evidenced by contracts made between District 50 and the company establishing a trust under § 302 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 186. Pertinent facts and contract provisions are fairly stated in considerable detail in the trial court's memorandum opinion reported at 315 F.Supp. 224.

The pension plan agreement provides that it shall remain in effect until April 30, 1966, and that it shall automatically continue thereafter for a period of one year unless either party notifies the other in writing not less than sixty days prior to the annual expiration date that a discontinuance or modification is desired.

On May 2, 1969, subsequent to the date that Brick and Clay Workers succeeded District 50 as the representative of the company's employees, District 50 and the company without complying with the notice provision of the contract entered into an agreement to terminate the contract. Without consulting Brick and Clay Workers or the employees, they notified the trustee of the pension funds, National Savings and Trust Company of Washington, D. C., that the trust had been terminated and they directed the trustee to liquidate the trust funds, and advised that further instructions would be forthcoming as to the disposition of the funds. The liquidated fund amounted to about $76,300, which fund is still in the hands of the bank trustee. The distribution plan agreed upon by District 50 and Alton Brick Company was to use the fund to provide full pension benefits provided by the agreement for eight retired employees and partial benefits for sixteen employees over fifty-five who had ten or more years of service with the company. Annuities were to be purchased from an insurance company to provide payment of the benefits. No provision was made for other company employees.

Brick and Clay Workers and the Alton Brick Company negotiated a pension agreement calling for the same contribution from the company which had previously been made. District 50 was asked to consent to the substitution of Brick and Clay Workers for District 50 in the pre-existing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Alvares v. Erickson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • March 10, 1975
    ...closing of plant); United Brick and Clay Workers v. International Union of District 50, UMW, E.D.Mo., 1970, 315 F.Supp. 224, aff'd, 8 Cir., 1971, 439 F.2d 311 (action by employees who selected a new union against old union and employer to continue pension plan in effect by substituting new ......
  • Richardson v. Communications Workers of America
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • June 4, 1971
    ...F.2d 99 (2 Cir. 1961), aff'd, 370 U.S. 530, 82 S.Ct. 1459, 8 L.Ed. 2d 671 (1962); cf. United Brick & Clay Workers of America v. International Union of District 50, United Mine Workers, 439 F.2d 311 (8 Cir., filed March 5, The above discussion is germane for realization that an employee wron......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Haberman Const. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • April 3, 1981
    ...NLRB, 567 F.2d 1343, 1349 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 985, 99 S.Ct. 576, 58 L.Ed.2d 656 (1978); United Brick & Clay Workers v. District 50, UMW, 439 F.2d 311, 314 (8th Cir. 1971); Hinson v. NLRB, 428 F.2d 133, 137 (8th Cir. Given the existence of these two principles, we have no diff......
  • N.L.R.B. v. Haberman Const. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • June 2, 1980
    ...NLRB, 567 F.2d 1343, 1349 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 985, 99 S.Ct. 576, 58 L.Ed.2d 656 (1978); United Brick & Clay Workers v. District 50, UMW, 439 F.2d 311, 314 (8th Cir. 1971); Hinson v. NLRB, 428 F.2d 133, 137 (8th Cir. Given the existence of these two principles, we have no diff......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT