Carpenters' Dist. Council of Greater St. Louis & Vicinity v. Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:11CV169 HEA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | CARPENTERS' DISTRICT COUNCIL OF GREATER ST. LOUIS AND VICINITY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COMMERCIAL WOODWORKING & CONTRACTING, INC., et al., Defendants. |
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 20]. Defendants oppose the motion, and the matter is fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
Plaintiffs brought this action seeking recovery of delinquent fringe benefit contributions Plaintiffs claim Defendants owe, pursuant to the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Plaintiffs also seek recovery of various loans made to Defendants Commercial Woodworking, David Marland, Roger S. Lahr, and John S. Neidenbach.
The facts of this matter are set out in Plaintiffs' Statement of Undisputed Facts. Defendants do not dispute most of the facts detailed by Plaintiffs, rather, Defendants assert their affirmative defenses preclude entry of summary judgment.
Plaintiff Carpenters' District Council of St. Louis (the "Union") is an unincorporated association comprised of and representing persons engaged in carpentry, joining, and related activities. The Union is a "labor organization" within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. §152(5), representing employees in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. §185, and is an "employee organization" within the meaning of Section 3(4) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1002(4). The Union maintains its principal offices within the Eastern District of Missouri. The Union is and was at all times material herein the collective bargaining representative of all employees in its bargaining units employed by defendant.
The Carpenters' Pension Trust Fund of St. Louis (the "Pension Trust"), the Carpenters' Health and Welfare Trust Fund of St. Louis (the "Welfare Trust"), and the Carpenters' Vacation Trust of St. Louis (the "Vacation Trust") (collectively referred to as "the Funds"), are all employee benefit plans within the meaning of Sections 3(3) and 502(d)(1) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1002(3) and §1132(d)(1), and are multi-employer plans within the meaning of Sections 3(37)(A) and 515 ofERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§1002(37)(A) and 1145. Plaintiffs Terry M. Nelson, John P. Mulligan, Patrick J. Sweeney, III, Renee Bell, Thomas Heinsz, John W. Fischer, Scott Byrne, Ken Stricker, James P. Schmid, Kirk Verseman, Albert Bond, Robert Calhoun, Ron Dicus and Earl Poe, III constitute the joint board of trustees of the Pension Trust and are the plan sponsor of the Pension Trust within the meaning of Section 3(16)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1002(16)(B), and are fiduciaries of the Pension Trust within the meaning of Section 3(21)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1002(21)(A), with respect to that fund. Plaintiffs Terry M. Nelson, John P. Mulligan, Patrick J. Sweeney, III, Renee Bell, Thomas Heinsz, John W. Fischer, Albert Bond, Ken Stricker, Michael T. Thuston, Kirk Verseman, Scott Byrne, Robert Calhoun, Ron Dicus and Earl Poe, III constitute the joint board of trustees of the Welfare Trust and are the plan sponsor of the Welfare Trust within the meaning of Section 3(16)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C §1002(16)(B), and are fiduciaries of the Welfare Trust within the meaning of Section 3(21)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1002(21)(A), with respect to that fund. Plaintiffs Terry M. Nelson, John P. Mulligan, Patrick J. Sweeney, III, Renee Bell, Thomas Heinsz, John W. Fischer, Albert Bond, Ken Stricker, James P. Schmid, Kirk Verseman, Robert Calhoun and Ron Dicus constitute the joint board of trustees of the Vacation Trust and are the plan sponsor of the Vacation Trust within the meaning of Section 3(16)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C §1002(16)(B), and are fiduciaries of the VacationTrust within the meaning of Section 3(21)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1002(21)(A), with respect to that fund. Plaintiffs Terry M. Nelson, Renee Bell, Robert Behlman, Dave Marxkors, Michael T. Thuston, Mike Grigaitis, Ron Dicus, Robert Wolf, John Holzer, and Albert Bond constitute the joint board of trustees of the Carpenters' Joint Training Fund of St. Louis and are the plan sponsor of the Training Fund within the meaning of Section 3(16)(B) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C §1002(16)(B), and are fiduciaries of the Training Fund within the meaning of Section 3(21)(A) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §1002(21)(A), with respect to that fund.
Defendant Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc. is a Missouri corporation in good standing. Defendant Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc. conducts business within this judicial district and is an employer in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 2(2), 2(6), and 2(7) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. §§152(2), 152(6), and 152(7), and within the meaning of Sections 3(5), 3(11), 3(12), and 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§1002(5), 1002(11), 1002(12), and 1145. Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc. has been party to collective bargaining agreements with the District Council.
The collective bargaining agreements require the payment of contributions to the Carpenters employee benefit funds. Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc. has failed to purchase the required stamps for fringe benefitcontributions. Although Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc. denies this fact, nothing in Defendant's exhibits establishes the contrary.
According to Plaintiff's records, Commercial Woodworking owes the following amounts in unpaid contributions: $134,081.26 for the period of June 2010 through May 3, 2011 for shop carpenters, and $23,508.93 for the period of June 2010 through January, 2011 for outside carpenters. Defendants dispute that they owe these amounts due to their affirmative defenses.
On April 26, 2004, Plaintiffs made a loan in the amount of $76,000.00 to defendants Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc., Dave Markland, Roger S. Lahr and John S. Neidenbach. The repayment of this loan was set forth in a promissory note. The Promissory Note contains the following provisions:
Defendants Commercial Woodworking, Dave Markland, Roger S. Lahr and John S. Neidenbach have materially defaulted on the Promissory Note by becoming delinquent in fringe benefit contributions.
The District Council has demanded that Commercial Woodworking, Dave Markland, Roger S. Lahr and John S. Neidenbach pay the amount due under the loan, to no avail.
On June 1, 2004, Plaintiff made a loan in the amount of $32,000.00 to Defendants Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc., Dave Markland, Roger S. Lahr and John S. Neidenbach. The repayment of the loan was set forth in a promissory note. The Promissory Note contains the following provisions:
The District Council has demanded that Commercial Woodworking, Dave Markland, Roger S. Lahr and John S. Neidenbach pay the amount due under the loan, to no avail.
On May 21, 2007, the District Council made a loan in the amount of $215,163.75 to Commercial Woodworking, Dave Markland, Roger S. Lahr and John S. Neidenbach. The repayment of this loan was set forth in a Promissory Note. The Promissory Note contains the following provisions:
The District Council has demanded that Commercial Woodworking, Dave Markland, Roger S. Lahr and John S. Neidenbach pay the amount due under the loan, to no avail.
On January 15, 2010, Plaintiff agreed to and thereafter did, provide Defendant Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc. with cash advances of$18,000.00 per week for sixteen (16) weeks, and Defendant Commercial Woodworking & Contracting, Inc. agreed to reimburse Plaintiff for these amounts. Commercial Woodworking has failed to repay the District Council a total of $116,025.25 out of the monies advanced. The District Council has demanded that Commercial Woodworking repay this amount, to no avail.
The standards for summary judgment are well settled. In determining whether summary judgment should issue, the Court must view the facts and inferences from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 984, 990 (8th Cir. 2005); Littrell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 459 F.3d...
To continue reading
Request your trial