Admiral Packing Co. v. Robert F. Kennedy Farm Workers Medical Plan
| Decision Date | 10 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-5636,87-5636 |
| Citation | 874 F.2d 683 |
| Parties | , 111 Lab.Cas. P 11,196, 10 Employee Benefits Ca 2709 ADMIRAL PACKING COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBERT F. KENNEDY FARM WORKERS MEDICAL PLAN, et al., Defendant. Appeal of JUAN DE LA CRUZ FARMWORKERS PENSION FUND PLAN, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
George C. Lazar, Lindley, Lazar & Scales, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Wayne A. Hersh, Finkle, Hersh & Stoll, Irvine, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before SCHROEDER, REINHARDT and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This action involves contributions made by an agricultural employer, Admiral Packing Company (Admiral), to medical and pension fund plans on behalf of a Union representative, Miguel Garcia, after termination of a collective bargaining agreement. The plans are multiemployer trusts within the purview of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001-1461 (1982 and Supp. IV 1986) (ERISA).
Admiral had a collective bargaining agreement with the agricultural employees until October 22, 1982. Despite termination of the agreement on that date, Admiral On October 10, 1983, Admiral terminated Garcia as the paid union representative. Over one year later, on October 22, 1984, Admiral requested refunds for the mistaken payments Admiral claimed it made from October 22, 1982, until October 10, 1983, on Garcia's behalf. The benefit plans' administrator declined to make the refund.
continued to contribute to the benefit plans on Garcia's behalf.
On October 8, 1985, Admiral filed a complaint in federal court seeking a return of the benefit contributions under section 403(c)(2)(A)(ii) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1103(c)(2)(A)(ii) (1982). Section 403(c)(2)(A)(ii) provides that contributions may be returned to an employer when they are:
[M]ade by an employer to a multiemployer plan by a mistake of fact or law ..., paragraph (1) shall not prohibit the return of such contribution or payment to the employer within 6 months after the plan administrator determines that the contribution was made by such a mistake. 1
The district court concluded that section 403(c)(2)(A)(ii) preempted any other statute of limitation in the pension plan documents, and that Admiral was entitled to a refund unless there were equitable considerations militating against a refund. Because the medical plan assumed the risk that Garcia would make claims against it as a result of the contributions, the court concluded that this was an equitable consideration that precluded a refund. With respect to the pension fund plan, the court found no equitable considerations to preclude a refund, and ordered $250 to be refunded to Admiral.
None of the parties were awarded attorneys' fees.
The pension plan timely appeals.
The interpretation and application of the provisions of ERISA are reviewed de novo. Trustees of Amalgamated Ins. Fund v. Geltman Indus., 784 F.2d 926, 929 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 822, 107 S.Ct. 90, 93 L.Ed.2d 42 (1986). Questions of preemption and denial of refund claims under ERISA are interpretations of law subject to de novo review. Chase v. Trustees of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 753 F.2d 744, 746 (9th Cir.1985).
The pension plan asserts that Admiral's action for a refund of mistakenly-made contributions is barred by the one-year statute of limitations stated in the trust document. We agree. Article 2, Section 2 of the Pension Fund Declaration of Trust states:
Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit the return of an Employer Contribution made by mistake of fact, provided such return is accomplished within one year after the mistaken payment is made.
Article 2, Section 2 is derived from the collective bargaining agreement, which provides a detailed description of the parties' agreement regarding refunds of benefit contributions (emphasis added):
In the event Company discovers that it has made an overpayment to any Plan due to a mistake of fact, Company shall promptly notify such Plan of that fact with specifics as to the date or dates of the alleged overpayment(s), the mistake of fact responsible for such overpayment(s), and the amount(s) involved. The Company shall submit, together with such notice of the fact that it claims an overpayment was made, such amended monthly report or reports as may be required to correct the Plan's records. Provided Company so notifies Plan of each overpayment, due to a mistake of fact, within one (1) year of the date the overpayment was made, and provided such mistake of fact is demonstrated, Plan will either refund to Company the overpayment involved, or authorize Company to take an offset from current contributions due to recover its overpayment, as Plan shall specify or Company shall be entitled to pursue legal remedies for reimbursement.... Company shall not be entitled to any refund, credit, offset, deduction or other form of reimbursement for any overpayment which is not discovered and reported to Plan within one (1) year of the date on which it is made.
The district court, citing no authority, held that the one-year limitation for obtaining refunds in the trust document and in the collective bargaining agreement was preempted by section 403(c)(2)(A)(ii) of ERISA. The court found the action timely, because section 403(c)(2)(A)(ii) permits an action to be brought "within six months after the plan administrator has made a determination on a claim for a refund." The plan administrator denied the claim on July 15, 1985, and the complaint was filed on October 8, 1985, less than three months later.
The issue is whether section 403(c)(2)(A)(ii) can relieve an employer of a more restrictive provision in a trust document. We have held that where the rules affecting ... pension benefits [are] fixed by the collective bargaining process
... the rule in question is insulated from judicial review under ERISA.... This result is in accord with a basic principle of labor law, viz, that the parties to collective bargaining agreements generally are free to fashion whatever type of employment contract on which they are able to come to agreement.
White v. Distributors Ass'n Warehousemen's Pension, 751 F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir.1985), West v. Greyhound Corp., 813 F.2d 951, 956 (9th Cir.1987). We observed further that " 'when neither the collective-bargaining process nor its end product violates any command of Congress, a federal court has no authority to modify the substantive terms of a collective-bargaining contract.' " White, 751 F.2d at 1071 () (quoting United Mine Workers of America Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson, 455 U.S. 562, 576, 102 S.Ct. 1226, 1234, 71 L.Ed.2d 419 (1982). See also Central Tool v. IAM Nat. Pension Fund, 811 F.2d 651, 660 & n. 60 (D.C.Cir.1987) ().
The one-year time limitation set forth in the trust document and in the collective bargaining agreement does not violate any command of Congress. One court has observed that the language of section 403(c)(2)(A) is permissive,
setting the broadest limits Congress was willing to extend to employers to seek refunds of erroneous contributions. The parties may derogate from that subsection to the extent that they choose to be more restrictive, but they may not exceed the limits set by Congress.
Electricians Health, Welfare, & Pension Plans v. Gulino, 594 F.Supp. 1265, 1272 (M.D.La.1984).
The one-year limitation here is more restrictive than the statutory provision because the one-year limitation requires Admiral to act within a shorter time to obtain a refund of mistakenly-paid contributions. To qualify for a refund, Admiral had to act within one year of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruocco v. Bateman, Eichler, Hill, Richards, Inc.
...well as preemption under ERISA are also subject to de novo review. Admiral Packing Co. v. Robert F. Kennedy Farm Workers Medical Plan, 874 F.2d 683, 684 (9th Cir.1989); Chase v. Trustees of W. Conf. of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 753 F.2d 744, 746 (9th Cir.1985); Trustees of Amalg. Ins. F......
-
Whitworth Bros. Storage Co. v. Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund
...limitation in regard to refunds as binding under federal common law is the Ninth Circuit. 10 In Admiral Packing Co. v. Robert F. Kennedy Farm Workers Medical Plan, 874 F.2d 683 (9th Cir.1989), the Ninth Circuit upheld the medical plan's one-year refund limitation policy. Id. at 684. The cou......
-
Sliwa v. Lincoln Nat'l Life Ins. Co.
...(9th Cir. 1999). I determine legal issues as to how to interpret ERISA's requirements de novo. Admiral Packing Co. v. Robert F. Kennedy Farm Workers Med. Plan, 874 F.2d 683, 684 (9th Cir. 1989). Sliwa argues that Lincoln's discretion must be subjected to heightened scrutiny because Lincoln ......