Emp'r Trs. Teamsters v. Union Trs. of W. Pa. Teamsters
| Decision Date | 31 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 16-1699, 16-3359.,s. 16-1699, 16-3359. |
| Citation | 870 F.3d 235 |
| Parties | EMPLOYER TRUSTEES OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA TEAMSTERS; Employers Welfare Fund, Appellants v. UNION TRUSTEES OF WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA TEAMSTERS; Thomas N. Heider; Joseph A. Molinero; James W. McClelland, Jr.; Albert J. Rush; Thomas Huck Union Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters, Employers Welfare Fund; Thomas N. Heider; Joseph A. Molinero; James W. McClelland, Jr.; Albert J. Rush; Thomas Huck, Appellants v. Employees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Welfare Fund; William J. Dillner; M.E. Doutt; Robert Jackson; Raymond Miller; Stephan Spolar |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Robert F. Prorok, Esq. [Argued], Carsen N. Ruperto, Esq., COHEN & GRIGSBY, 625 Liberty Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for Employer Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employers Welfare Fund, William J. Dillner, Jr., M.E. Doutt, Robert Jackson, Raymond Miller, Stephan Spolar
Joseph J. Pass, Esq. [Argued], JUBELIRER PASS & INTRIERI, 219 Fort Pitt Boulevard, 1st Floor, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Counsel for Union Trustees of Western Pennsylvania Teamsters, Thomas N. Heider, Joseph A. Molinero, James W. McClelland, Jr., Albert J. Rush, and Thomas Huck
Before: AMBRO, VANASKIE, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
Arbitration has long played an integral role in settling labor disputes arising between employees and employers. Recognizing the effectiveness of arbitration in this context, § 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA") explicitly requires employee benefit trust funds to include a mechanism for arbitrating deadlocks amongst trustees that develop in the course of fund administration. This appeal features two such deadlocks, each involving a faction of trustees petitioning the District Court to appoint an arbitrator to break the stalemate despite objections from the other members. The District Court declined to send either conflict to arbitration, finding that the trust agreement did not permit such an appointment. We disagree, finding that both disputes were within the purview of the parties' agreement to arbitrate. Accordingly, we will remand for appointment of an arbitrator in each action.
The Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and Employees Welfare Fund ("the Fund") is a multi-employer benefit plan established under § 302(c)(5) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5). Section 302 aims to "deal with problems peculiar to collective bargaining" such as "corruption ... through bribery of employee representatives by employers, ... extortion by employee representatives, and ... possible abuse by union officers of the power which they might achieve if welfare funds were left to their sole control." Arroyo v. United States , 359 U.S. 419, 425–26, 79 S.Ct. 864, 3 L.Ed.2d 915 (1959). To accomplish this end, the section broadly prohibits employers from providing payments of money or other items of value to employee representatives. Associated Contractors of Essex Cty., Inc. v. Laborers Int'l Union of N. Am. , 559 F.2d 222, 225 (3d Cir. 1977), abrogated by Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Demisay , 508 U.S. 581, 113 S.Ct. 2252, 124 L.Ed.2d 522 (1993). The provision, however, does incorporate an exception for employee benefit trust funds that comply with certain statutory requirements, including mandatory administration by a board of trustees composed of an equal number of employee and employer representatives. Associated Contractors , 559 F.2d at 225.
In compliance with § 302's equal representation requirement, the Fund is overseen by ten trustees (collectively, the "Trustees"): five union-designated trustees (the "Union Trustees") and five employer-designated trustees (the "Employer Trustees"). While this arrangement assures that both blocks of Trustees maintain equal voting power, it also results in deadlocks where the Employer and Union Trustees uniformly disagree. Anticipating this dilemma, § 302(c)(5) of the LMRA requires such benefit trust funds to install a mechanism allowing a federal district court to appoint a neutral party to resolve any impasse. Accordingly, the Fund's Trust Agreement specifies that "[i]n the event of a deadlock," the Trustees "may agree upon an impartial umpire to break such deadlock by deciding the dispute in question." (Case No. 16–1699 App. at 162–63, Trust Agreement, § 3.15(a).) If the Trustees cannot agree on an "impartial umpire within a reasonable period of time, then, either group of Trustees ... may petition the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to appoint such impartial umpire." (Id. )
The Trustees now find themselves deadlocked on two motions: one seeking to approve payment of compensation to eligible Trustees for attendance at Fund meetings and the other seeking to clarify and confirm the eligibility requirements for Employer Trustees. In each case, one half of the board petitioned the District Court to appoint an arbitrator to settle the dispute, and the opposing half of the board sought to prevent the requested appointment.
The Trustees' first deadlock centers on an Employer Trustee's motion to pay compensation to eligible Trustees in "the amount of $600.00 per Trustee Sub–Committee Meeting and the amount of $600.00 per monthly Trustee Meeting, to be paid upon the Trustee's attendance at [the] meetings." (Case No. 16–1699 App. at 130, ¶ 17.) The Trustees have unanimously voted to approve similar compensation on three previous occasions since 1989. This time, however, all of the Employer Trustees united behind the measure while all of the Union Trustees voted against it, creating a deadlock. The Employer Trustees sought to refer the dispute to arbitration, but the Union Trustees initially refused, arguing that two of the Employer Trustees who voted for the measure were invalidly appointed. After fund counsel affirmed the validity of the disputed appointments, the Union Trustees agreed to arbitrate the compensation dispute.1
As the scheduled arbitration drew near, another argument ignited over whether the Employer Trustees should be required to turn over income tax returns and other financial information pertaining to Trustees who might be eligible to receive the contested compensation. The Employer Trustees ultimately declined to provide these records, and the Union Trustees responded by again refusing to arbitrate the compensation dispute, arguing that the Trust Agreement does not authorize compensation for meeting attendance.
The Employer Trustees initiated this action to petition the District Court for the appointment of an arbitrator to untangle the compensation stalemate. The Union Trustees sought dismissal, asserting that the Trust Agreement does not authorize the payment of compensation to Trustees, and so any decision by an arbitrator would exceed his or her authority under § 3.15(b) of the Trust Agreement. The Employer Trustees followed with a motion for partial summary judgment contending that the Trust Agreement can be read to allow such payments, and that an arbitrator should break the impasse. Upon consideration, the District Court agreed that the Trust Agreement did not authorize payment of compensation and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice. A timely appeal followed.
The second deadlock arises tangentially from the compensation dispute. As mentioned, the Union Trustees initially refused to arbitrate the compensation conflict on the ground that two of the Employer Trustees who voted on the compensation motion were invalidly appointed. A disagreement ensued over whether an Employer Trustee "must be a full-time employee of a contributing employer to the fund." (Case No. 16–3359 App. at 307.) One of the Union Trustees moved to "clarify and amend" the Trust Agreement to provide this requirement. (Id. ) As expected, the vote on this motion deadlocked, and the Employer Trustees refused to arbitrate because § 3.15(b) of the Trust Agreement prohibits an arbitrator from "chang[ing] or modify[ing]" the Agreement.
Several months later, the same Union Trustee raised a very similar motion, seeking "to clarify and confirm that the Trust Agreement requires that all Employer Trustees must be a full time employee of a contributing employer to the Fund in order to serve on the Board of Trustees." (Case No. 16–3359 App. at 421 (emphasis added).) This new motion stood in contrast to the original motion to "clarify and amend " the Trust Agreement. The vote again deadlocked.
The Union Trustees brought this action after the parties failed to agree to arbitration. The Trustees submitted cross-motions for summary judgment, and the District Court ruled in favor of the Employer Trustees, finding that the Trust Agreement did not permit the Union Trustees' interpretation of the Employer Trustee eligibility requirements. The Union Trustees now appeal this decision. Both disputes have been consolidated on appeal.
The District Court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have appellate jurisdiction over the final orders of the District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review both memorandum opinions and orders under a plenary standard. United Steelworkers of Am., AFL–CIO–CLC v. Rohm & Haas Co. , 522 F.3d 324, 330 (3d Cir. 2008) ; see also Harris v. Green Tree Fin. Corp. , 183 F.3d 173, 176 (3d Cir. 1999) ().
Section 302(c)(5)(B) of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)(B), serves the important function of ensuring that a mechanism is available to break any deadlocks that arise between competing factions of trustees in the course of administering an employee benefit trust fund. As we have explained, the boards that oversee these trust funds must maintain equal representation of employers and employees, and frequent deadlocks between the two factions are a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mateo v. Attorney Gen. United States
-
Emp'r Trs. of W. Pa. Teamsters & Emp'rs Welfare Fund v. Union Trs. of W. Pa. Teamsters & Emp'rs Welfare Fund
...Court of Appeals held that the Compensation Deadlock was arbitrable and ordered arbitration. Emp'r Trustees of W. Pa. Teamsters v. Union Trustees of W. Pa. Teamsters, 870 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2017). Michael E. Zobrak ("Zobrak")3 was selected as impartial umpire to resolve the Compensation Dead......
-
Gillick v. Elliott
...power, it also results in deadlocks where the Employer and Union Trustees uniformly disagree." Emp. Trs. of W. Pa. Teamsters v. Union Trs. of W. Pa. Teamsters, 870 F.3d 235, 238 (3d Cir. 2017). Accordingly, "in the event the employer and employee groups deadlock on the administration of [th......
-
Krueger v. Angelos
...our sister circuits. See Barrett v. Miller , 276 F.2d 429 (2d Cir. 1960) ; Emp. Trustees of W. Pa. Teamsters v. Union Trustees of W. Pa. Teamsters (Western Pennsylvania Teamsters ), 870 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2017). However, these cases do not advance the Union Trustee's position.In Barrett , th......