Cuff v. Gleason

• Decision Date: 15 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 677,D,677
• Citation: 515 F.2d 127
• Parties: 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2076, 76 Lab.Cas. P 10,863, 1 Employee Benefits Ca 1514 John E. CUFF, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas W. GLEASON et al., Defendants-Appellants. ocket 74-2504.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Page 127

515 F.2d 127

89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2076, 76 Lab.Cas. P 10,863,

1 Employee Benefits Ca 1514

John E. CUFF, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas W. GLEASON et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 677, Docket 74-2504.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued Feb. 24, 1975.

Decided April 15, 1975.

Constantine P. Lambos, New York City (Thomas W. Gleason, Richard P. Lerner, Richard H. Kapp, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellants.

Stanley F. Meltzer, New York City (Harold Fishman, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellee.

Before MANSFIELD, OAKES and TIMBERS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The merits of this appeal involve the construction of a labor management trust, specifically the New York Shipping Association (NYSA) International Longshoremen's Association (ILA) Pension Plan and Pension Trust Fund. The appellee, who became disabled in March of 1972, was determined ineligible for a disability pension by the appellants who were the joint NYSA and ILA trustees of a trust created under Section 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 186. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Walter Bruchhausen, Judge, held that the appellants-trustees had read into Article III, Section 7, of the pension plan an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable requirement for eligibility, that in addition to having been employed not less than fifteen years the employment had to be immediately prior to the disability. The appellee was held entitled by the court below to his disability benefits.

Unfortunately this court is unable to reach the merits as we fail to perceive any federal subject matter jurisdiction. While lack of jurisdiction was not raised by the parties or court below, this court can and must always determine for itself its jurisdiction. E. g., Hackner v. Guaranty Trust Co.,117 F.2d 95 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 559, 61 S.Ct. 835, 85 L.Ed. 1520 (1941); 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1393.

Here the issue is whether the application of rules of a jointly-administered pension trust to an individual claim was arbitrary and capricious. In Beam v. International Organization of Masters, Mates and Pilots, 511 F.2d 975 (2d Cir. 1975), the same issue was presented but the court reached the merits and applied New York law because there was diversity of citizenship. Here, from reading the complaint it appears that there is no diversity jurisdiction. Beam ruled tentatively in dictum that § 302(c)(5) of the LMRA would not confer federal jurisdiction where an application of a trust pension plan rather than a collective bargaining agreement, Smith v. Evening News Association, 371 U.S. 195, 83 S.Ct. 267, 9 L.Ed.2d 246 (1962), was involved and the specific requirements of § 302(c)(5) are met, ¹ Moglia v. Geoghegan, 403 F.2d 110 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 919, 89 S.Ct. 1193, 22 L.Ed.2d 453 (1969). 511 F.2d at 978-979. While we would not necessarily be bound by dictum, we have determined that Beam correctly read the legislative history, see 1959 U.S.Cong. & Ad.News, pp. 2326-30, and is an accurate statement of the jurisdictional scope of § 302(c)(5).

Nor does other legislation effective at the time of appellee's disability and application for disability benefits confer jurisdiction on this court. Section 501 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S.C. § 501, which imposes fiduciary responsibility on officers of labor organizations in the handling of union money, is silent as to federally created duties for trustees of a pension trust fund jointly administered by labor and management. Cf. Haley v. Palatnik, 509 F.2d 1038 (2d Cir. 1975). In addition § 9(h) of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 308(h), provides

Nothing contained in this chapter shall be so construed or applied as to authorize the Secretary to regulate, or interfere in the management of, any employee welfare or pension benefit plan, except that the Secretary may inquire into the existence and amount of investments, actuarial assumptions, or accounting practices only when it has been determined that investigation is required in accordance with section 308(d) of this title.

Determination of jurisdiction in this case is not controlled by Lowenstern v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 479 F.2d 1211 (1973), or Miniard v. Lewis, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 299, 387 F.2d 864 (1967), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 873, 89 S.Ct. 166, 21 L.Ed.2d 144 (1968). These cases, which are cited by appellant but which do not discuss the underlying jurisdictional problem, are inapposite since the federal courts are the only courts in the District of Columbia.

Congress has eliminated this gap in federal jurisdiction by enacting the Pension Reform Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq., e...