Airco Indus. Gases v. Teamsters Health & Welfare Pension Fund

• Citation: 618 F. Supp. 943
• Decision Date: 11 September 1985
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 84-123 MMS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
• Parties: AIRCO INDUSTRIAL GASES, Plaintiff, v. TEAMSTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE PENSION FUND OF PHILADELPHIA & VICINITY, Defendant.

618 F. Supp. 943

AIRCO INDUSTRIAL GASES, Plaintiff, v. TEAMSTERS HEALTH AND WELFARE PENSION FUND OF PHILADELPHIA & VICINITY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 84-123 MMS.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

September 11, 1985.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Stanley William Balick, Stanley William Balick, P.A., Wilmington, Del., of counsel; Robert J. Bray, Jr., and Thomas M. Tammany, Robert J. Bray & Associates, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Francis J. Trzuskowski, Trzuskowski, Kipp, Kelleher & Pearce, P.A., Wilmington, Del., of counsel; James J. Leyden, Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION

MURRAY M. SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff Airco Industrial Gases ("Airco") instituted this action against the Teamsters Health and Welfare Pension Fund of Philadelphia and Vicinity ("Fund") to recover payments mistakenly made to the Fund. Plaintiff alleges causes of action under sections 301 and 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 185, 186, section 403(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 1103(c), and the Delaware law of unjust enrichment. Jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the federal question jurisdictional statute.

With the relevant facts being largely undisputed, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The question presented by these motions is whether an employer has a cause of action under the LMRA, ERISA, federal common law, or state law to recover contributions mistakenly made to a pension fund. For the reasons stated below, the Court finds that the employer has no cause of action under the LMRA or ERISA, but it may recover under the federal common law of unjust enrichment. However, summary judgment cannot be granted on an unjust enrichment claim because the financial stability of the Fund is a material factual issue in dispute.

I. FACTS

The relevant facts regarding the mistaken payments are not in dispute. Airco is an employer of union labor located in Delaware. The Fund is a multiemployer employee benefit plan as defined in ERISA. During the period in question, Airco was a party to two separate collective bargaining agreements, one with the Highway Truck Drivers and the other with the Helpers Union, Local 107. One of these agreements, and its predecessor agreements, obligated Airco to make contributions to the Fund on behalf of Airco's driver employees. Under the other agreement, Airco was obligated to make pension contributions on behalf of its production and maintenance employees to a separate pension plan, and not to the Fund.

In 1976, Airco erroneously informed the Fund that John Lucas and Walter Dobromilski were employees for whom monthly contributions were due. The Fund accepted this representation without verifying it. In fact, Lucas and Dobromilski were Airco production and maintenance employees, and Airco was not obligated to contribute to the Fund on their behalf. From June, 1976 to April, 1983, Airco made a total of $25,831.41 in payments to the Fund on behalf of Lucas and Dobromilski.

In 1983, Airco discovered its error during a review of its corporate pension plan contributions. Neither party had been aware of the error until Airco discovered it. Airco notified the Fund of the error and demanded that the Fund return the mistakenly paid money, plus interest. In response, the Fund, in purported reliance on the decision in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Teamsters Pension Fund of Philadelphia, 549 F.Supp. 307 (E.D.Pa.1982), aff'd mem., 720 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1983), rejected the demand on September 26, 1983. The Fund's letter stated: "The Trustees of the Teamsters Health and Welfare and Pension Funds of Philadelphia and Vicinity sic have concluded that no overpaid contributions shall be returned to any employer. Likewise, ... the Trustees have further determined that no contributing employer shall be entitled to an offset against delinquent contributions due and owing." Complaint, Docket Item ("Dkt.") 1, Exh. E. The Fund's Administrator later stated that Lucas and Dobromilski will never be eligible to receive pension benefits from the Fund, because they are not covered employees under the relevant collective bargaining agreement. Deposition of Charles J. Schaffer, Jr., Dkt. 10, at 51-52. Airco brought this action on March 2, 1984 to recover the mistaken contributions made on behalf of Lucas and Dobromilski.

II. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff seeks recovery of the money mistakenly paid to the Fund under several alternative theories. Each will be discussed in turn.

A. LMRA

Plaintiff alleges two causes of action under the LMRA: first, a cause of action under section 301(a) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a); second, a cause of action founded on section 302(c)(5)(B) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)(B). Section 185(a)¹ provides, in pertinent part: "Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization ... may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties. ..." Plaintiff contends its payments were violative of its collective bargaining agreement with the Fund because Lucas and Dobromilski were not employees within that bargaining unit. It follows, Airco argues, that the money should be returned.

The most evident defect in plaintiff's argument is that this is not an action "for violation of contracts." The collective bargaining agreement does not forbid the Fund from accepting, or require the Fund to return, mistakenly paid contributions. The only case cited by plaintiff in support of its argument, Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Kaufman & Broad of Northern California, Inc., 707 F.2d 412 (9th Cir.1983), is inapposite. Plaintiffs there sued to enforce a contract, and the primary issue was one of contract interpretation. The Fund, however, has not breached its contract with Airco, as mistaken payments are not covered by the contract.

Plaintiff's second LMRA theory is that it has a cause of action founded on section 302(c) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c), which allegedly forbids payments by an employer to an employee representative unless they are made pursuant to a written agreement. Section 186(e), which grants federal courts jurisdiction to enforce section 186, provides that district courts only have the power "to restrain violations of this section." 29 U.S.C. § 186(e). A damage remedy is not provided. For this reason, other federal courts faced with this issue have held that section 186 does not authorize an action by an employer for restitution of mistaken payments. See, e.g., Award Service, Inc. v. Northern California Retail Clerks Unions & Food Employers Joint Pension Trust Fund, 763 F.2d 1066, 1069-70 (9th Cir.1985); R.V. Cloud Co. v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund, 566 F.Supp. 1426, 1430 (N.D.Cal.1983). Plaintiff has not demonstrated why those cases are wrong. Accordingly, plaintiff's causes of action under the LMRA will be dismissed.

B. ERISA

Plaintiff's primary claim is that its action for recovery of mistaken contributions is authorized under ERISA. Plaintiff relies on section 403(c)(2)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1103(c)(2)(A), as amended by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 ("MPPAA"). Section 1103(c) provides, in pertinent part:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), ... the assets of a plan shall never inure to the benefit of any employer....

(2)(A) In the case of a contribution, ...

(ii) made by an employer to a multiemployer plan by a mistake of fact or law ... paragraph (1) shall not prohibit the return of such contribution ... to the employer within 6 months after the plan administrator determines that the contribution was made by such a mistake.

Plaintiff alleges that the language in section 1103(c)(2)(A)(ii) allowing funds to return mistaken contributions creates a cause of action in favor of employers for the return of those contributions.

Plaintiff's ERISA contentions raises two related questions: First, whether this Court has jurisdiction over plaintiff's claim under ERISA; second, whether plaintiff's claim states a cognizable cause of action. Section 502(a) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), authorizes civil actions brought by the Secretary, or by a participant, beneficiary or fiduciary. The statute further provides that "the district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions under this subchapter brought by the Secretary or by a participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary." 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has recently stated that this section and its list of parties who may sue must be read "narrowly and literally." Northeast Department ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund, 764 F.2d 147, 153 (3d Cir.1985). In that case, the appellate court held that section 1132 does not authorize federal jurisdiction over a suit brought by an employee pension fund. Id. at 154; see also New Jersey State AFL-CIO v. New Jersey, 747 F.2d 891, 892 (3d Cir.1984) (labor unions cannot bring suit under 29 U.S.C. § 1132). It follows that plaintiff's action cannot be maintained under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 because employers are not among the potential plaintiffs listed in the statute.

Plaintiff has attempted to avoid this problem by alleging that jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which gives federal district courts jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Id. "A claim `arises under' federal law only if `a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States is an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff's cause of action.'" Franchise Tax Board v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 1847, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983), quoting Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936)." New Jersey...