Ballard & Associates, Inc. v. Mangum, 9637.

• Docket Nº: No. 9637.
• Citation: 368 A.2d 548
• Case Date: January 14, 1977
• Court: Court of Appeals of Columbia District

368 A.2d 548 BALLARD & ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., Appellants,
v.
J. Albert MANGUM et al., Appellees. No. 9637. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Argued October 14, 1976. Decided January 14, 1977.

Page 549

A. Fred Freedman, Washington, D. C., for appellants. Francis J. Pelland, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellants.

John J. McBurney, for appellees.

Before GALLAGHER, YEAGLEY and MACK, Associate Judges.

YEAGLEY, Associate Judge:

This is an appeal from the denial of an injunction requested to enjoin arbitration of a dispute between the parties over employer contributions to a labor trust fund. Appellants are painting contractors, and appellees are trustees of a Painters' Trust Fund; the fund was established under Article X of the collective bargaining agreement between the contractor/employers and the Union Painters and Glaziers District Council No. 51. As parties to the collective bargaining agreement, appellants agreed to make regular contributions to the fund. The main dispute between the parties arises over the issue of whether the appellants are required to contribute to the fund for "temporary employees".¹ The issue before the court is whether appellees should be enjoined from forcing appellants

Page 550

to arbitrate the merits of this dispute before the American Arbitration Association. To resolve this appeal we must answer the following questions:

(1) Are appellants required to contribute to the trust fund for temporary employees?

(2) Can the trustees compel arbitration of disputes under the trust agreement?

(3) Can the trustees compel arbitration on the issue of contractor contributions to the trust fund for temporary employees?

I.

The first issue, the merits of the contributions claim, was decided in the contractors' favor in 1973 by the Fourth Circuit in Mangum v. A-1 Painting Contractors, Civil No. 72-1970 (4th Cir., May 16, 1973). This decision was interpreted on September 26, 1975, by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia wherein the court said:

The Court now declares that the plaintiff [one of the appellants here] is not obligated to contribute to the trust fund on behalf of any employees designated as "temporary employees." [Clifton D. Mayhew, Inc. v. Painters and Glaziers' District Council No. 51, 401 F.Supp. 415 at 415-416 (E.D.Va., 1975).]

Appellees are bound by these judgments under the principles of res judicata.

The trustees and the trust fund were parties in each of the prior federal cases and are appellees in the instant case. Contractor Mayhew, plaintiff in the 1975 district court action in Virginia, is one of the appellants in the instant case. Because each of the prior adjudications involved the identical issue of contractors' contributions for temporary employees, and because the trust fund or the trustees were parties in each prior adjudication, we are not troubled here by the lack of total mutuality of estoppel which has been a concomitant doctrine to res judicata. 1B J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 0.412 (2d ed. 1974). In addition, the different contractors who litigated this dispute in the prior adjudications and appellants here are all employer/parties to the same collective bargaining agreement at issue.

Where a full opportunity has been afforded to a party to the prior action and he has failed . . . to establish liability . . . on the part of another, there is no reason for permitting him to retry these issues. [B. R. DeWitt, Inc. v. Hall, [19 N.Y.2d 141, 278 N.Y.S.2d 596, 599] 225 N.E.2d 195, 197 (N.Y.Ct. App. 1967), quoting Good Health Dairy Prods. Corp. v. Emery, 275 N.Y. 14, 18, 9 N.E.2d 758, 759 (1937).]

We therefore hold that appellants Ballard and Wirman may invoke the conclusive effect of the prior judgments even though, except for appellant Mayhew, none of the appellants was a party to the prior suits.

The fact that the clarifying judgment was rendered after the beginning of the action in the instant appeal (April 24, 1975) is of no consequence.² The federal district court stated in September 1975 that its judgment was but an interpretation of the earlier, Fourth Circuit opinion:

As the Court interprets that holding, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Page 551

Fourth Circuit concluded that an employer subject to the collective bargaining agreement under consideration in that cause was under no duty to make contribution to the union trust fund for "temporary employees." That holding, and this Court's holding in the instant case, was premised on the conclusion that "temporary employees" were not covered by the bargaining agreement, and that the trust agreement under consideration was not intended to broaden the employers duty to contribute beyond that obligation which was set forth in the bargaining agreement. [Mayhew v. Painters and Glaziers' District Council No. 51, supra at 415.]

The trustees argue that the Fourth Circuit's 1973 decision, and the 1972 district court opinion it affirmed, did not preclude them from amending the trust fund agreement to provide coverage for "temporary employees" and to require contributions from contractors for that coverage. This argument was resolved against the trustees by the 1975 Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia interpretation of the 1973 decision:

In short, it was the opinion of that Court and this Court that this finding effectively precludes the union's right to alter the employer's obligation under the bargaining agreement by virtue of a unilateral amendment to the trust agreement. [Mayhew v. Painters and Glaziers' District Council No. 51, supra at 415.]

There is no dispute over how matters included in the trust agreement can be amended. Article VII, section 3 of the trust agreement in part reads:

This Agreement and Declaration of Trust may be amended in any respect by unanimous vote of the TRUSTEES . . . .

However, this does not empower the trustees to make modifications of matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement. The Eastern District of Virginia court's language supports the conclusion that the union and employer trustees cannot impose an obligation on the parties not...