Firesheets v. A.G. Bldg. Specialists, Inc., 97-30688
| Citation | 134 F.3d 729 |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-30688,97-30688 |
| Parties | 157 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2534, 135 Lab.Cas. P 10,123 William T. FIRESHEETS, II, Trustee; Joseph M. Ardoin, Trustee, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. A.G. BUILDING SPECIALISTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
David Gregory Koch, Robert L. Roland, Watson, Blanche, Wilson & Posner, Baton Rouge, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Thomas R. Peak, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
Before REYNALDO G. GARZA, SMITH and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
This case comes from a decision of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Judge Frank J. Polozola, presiding. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendant-Appellee, A.G. Building Specialists, Inc. ("A.G. Building"). The Plaintiffs-Appellants, William T. Firesheets ("Firesheets") and Joseph M. Ardoin ("Ardoin"), acting in their capacity as trustees for the Carpenters Local 1098 ("Local 1098") Welfare Fund, Pension Trust, and Educational and Training Program Trust (collectively, "the Trust Funds") timely appealed, and the matter now lies before this panel.
A.G. Building and its employees had a collective bargaining agreement (the "Agreement") which was in effect from May 1, 1982 to April 30, 1984. One of the requirements of this Agreement was that A.G. Building had to make contributions to the employees' Trust Funds. The extent to which, if at all, the contribution requirements of the Agreement lasted beyond April 30, 1984, is at the core of this dispute.
In a letter dated January 17, 1984, Albert Greene ("Greene"), the principal owner of A.G. Building, advised Local 1098 of A.G. Building's withdrawal from a multiemployer bargaining unit, and its desire to terminate the Agreement. Soon thereafter, Greene met with representatives of Local 1098 to negotiate for a new collective bargaining agreement. No new collective bargaining agreement was prepared or signed by the parties, however. Since 1984, A.G. Building has solely set, determined, and modified the terms and conditions of employment for its employees, with no input from or bargaining with Local 1098.
A.G. Building continued to make voluntary contributions to the Trust Funds on behalf of some of its employees for approximately ten years after the expiration date of the original Agreement. Beginning in January of 1988, contributions were made for only two individuals. Contributions were made for only one employee from April, 1992, until the last contribution in 1994. During this time, A.G. Building continued to file contribution reports, and complied with changes made in the contribution rates.
Firesheets and Ardoin, in their capacities as trustees of the Trust Funds, filed suit on December 8, 1995, naming A.G. Building as defendant, and alleging that A.G. Building had failed to make certain contributions to the Trust Funds, as (they allege) was required under the Agreement. Following discovery, a Joint Motion to Bifurcate was filed to determine separately the issues of liability and damages in this matter. Both sides filed for summary judgment in their favor with regard to liability, and the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of A.G. Building, and against the Trust Funds. The Trust Funds timely appealed.
The standard of review for the granting of a motion for summary judgment is de novo. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Johnson Bros. Corp. of Louisiana, 106 F.3d 119, 122 (5th Cir.1997); Guillory v. Domtar Industries, Inc., 95 F.3d 1320, 1326 (5th Cir.1996). Summary judgment is warranted when "the pleadings, depositions, interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
The Trust Funds correctly state that for A.G. Building to be liable for failure to make contributions, the Trust Funds must show there was a collective bargaining agreement between A.G. Building and Local 1098. The Trust Funds argue that the District Court erred in not finding a valid agreement between the parties. They basically have three independent arguments: (1) the original Agreement did not terminate, (2) a new collective bargaining agreement was reached, as shown by certain notes and documents and A.G. Building's conduct, or (3) A.G. Building is bound by its conduct over the years to continue making contributions under provisions of § 302(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 USC § 151, et seq. All of these arguments fail. We hold that the District Court did not commit reversible error, and we affirm its decision.
The first argument is the simplest to dispose of. The Agreement, by its own terms, terminated at midnight on April 30, 1984. The preamble of the Agreement required that any modification to the Agreement had to be set forth in writing. Local 1098 was given written notice of A.G. Building's intentions to terminate the Agreement over three months before the termination date. No written modifications were made to the original Agreement to extend it, and the counsel for the Trust Funds admitted during oral argument at the trial court level that Greene's letter expressing his intent to terminate the Agreement was sufficient to cancel the Agreement. The original Agreement died at midnight of April 30, 1984, and nothing was done to resurrect it. This argument fails.
Next, the Trust Funds argue that a new collective bargaining agreement was made. The Trust Funds use this circuit's decision in NLRB v. Haberman Construction Co., 641 F.2d 351 (5th Cir.1981) as a starting point. They point out that this circuit has held that Id. at 355, 356 (citations omitted). The Trust Funds state that A.G. Building's conduct shows an intention to be bound, because: A.G. Building continued to make contributions to the Trust Funds after the expiration date of the Agreement, A.G. Building continued to file monthly contribution reports which included language stating that it was bound by provisions of the agreements with Local 1098, and because of the existence of certain notes from the negotiations for a new agreement which discuss details of possible arrangements.
A.G. Building responds that, as stated previously, the old Agreement was terminated, that notes from the negotiations do not evidence any agreement, and those notes are not sufficient to constitute a labor contract. A.G. Building further states that Haberman is distinguishable because A.G. Building's conduct is not consistent with the formation of an agreement, and has behaved in a manner inconsistent with the original...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Operating Engineers Local 139 v. Gustafson Construction Co.
...F.2d 330, 332 (7th Cir. 1988); Brown v. C. Volante Corp., 194 F.3d 351, 354-55 (2d Cir. 1999); compare Firesheets v. A.G. Building Specialist, Inc., 134 F.3d 729, 731-32 (5th Cir. 1998).) It was here. The overpayments that the defendant made to the fund month after month after month were no......
-
Dugan v. R.J. Corman R. Co.
...that Corman considered the agreement to be still in effect despite its formal expiration. Firesheets v. A.G. Building Specialists, Inc., 134 F.3d 729, 731 (5th Cir.1998) (per curiam). It is weak evidence, however — evidence the district judge was not required to credit — because Corman had ......
-
Agillard v. Crowley Garment Mfg. Co.
...cases cited by Plaintiffs in which the courts did not find a valid agreement are clearly distinguishable. In Firesheets v. A.G. Building Specialists, Inc., 131 F.3d 729 (5 Cir.1998), the agreement in question required that any modification be in writing. Three months before the agreement ex......
-
Fiorentino v. Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 4 Pension Plan & the Bd. of Trs. of the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 4 Pension Plan
...workers, to perform work covered by the CBA; and (d) voluntarily submitted to an audit by the Funds. See Firesheets v. A.G. Bldg. Specialists, 134 F.3d 729, 731 (5th Cir. 1998); Bricklayers Local 21 of Ill. Apprenticeship & Training Program v. Banner Restoration, Inc., 385 F.3d 761, 766 (7t......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...for employer-sponsored trust funds established for exclusive benefit of employees). (212.) See Firesheets v. A.G. Bldg. Specialists, Inc., 134 F.3d 729, 732 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding written agreement requirement of [section] 302(c) should be strictly complied with to ensure congressional in......
-
Employment-related crimes.
...optimal return are not the wrongdoing that [section] 186 was intended to prevent). (224.) See Firesheets v. A.G. Bldg. Specialists, Inc., 134 F.3d 729, 732 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that the written agreement requirement of [section] 302(c) should be strictly complied with to ensure conforma......
-
EMPLOYMENT LAW VIOLATIONS
...[29 U.S.C. § 186] was intended to prevent”). 328. 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)(B) (2018); see Firesheets v. A.G. Bldg. Specialists, Inc., 134 F.3d 729, 732 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that written-agreement requirement of § 302(c) should be strictly complied with to ensure conformance with congressio......
-
Employment law violations
...if the value of the money or other thing of value is 310. 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)(B); see Firesheets v. A.G. Bldg. Specialists, Inc., 134 F.3d 729, 732 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding written-agreement requirement of § 302(c) should be strictly complied with to ensure conformance with congressional ......