Gerhardson v. Gopher News Co.
| Decision Date | 06 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 11–2991,11–3089.,s. 11–2991 |
| Citation | 698 F.3d 1052 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
| Parties | Steven GERHARDSON; Ron Hanek; Mike Johnson; Jim Costello, Plaintiffs–Appellants v. GOPHER NEWS COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant–Appellee. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Defendant Local No. 638 of the Miscellaneous Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen's Union (International Brotherhood of Teamsters), Defendant–Appellee. Steven Gerhardson; Ron Hanek; Mike Johnson; and Jim Costello, Plaintiffs v. Gopher News Company, a Minnesota corporation, Defendant–Appellant Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Defendant Local No. 638 of the Miscellaneous Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen's Union (International Brotherhood of Teamsters), Defendant–Appellee. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Jordan M. Lewis, argued, Wood R. Foster, Jr., on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for appellants Steven Gerhardson, Ron Hanek, Mike Johnson and Jim Costello.
James D. Kremer, argued, Shane Harr Anderson, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee/cross-appellant Gopher News Company.
Justin D. Cummins, argued, Roger A. Jensen, Brendan D. Cummins, on the brief, Minneapolis, MN, for appellee/cross-appellee Local No. 638 of the Miscellaneous Drivers, Helper & Warehousemen's Union (International Brotherhood of Teamsters).
Before RILEY, Chief Judge, SMITH and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
Steven Gerhardson, Ron Hanek, Mike Johnson, and Jim Costello (collectively, drivers) were unionized delivery drivers covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The CBA established a pension plan operated by a third-party pension management firm. A dispute arose in 2006 after the drivers' employer and union renegotiated the CBA. The drivers sued their employer, the union, and the pension management firm for various breaches of duty. On summary judgment motions, the district court 1 found the drivers' claims were barred by the statute of limitations, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b), and later dismissed all other claims, including the employer's crossclaims against the union. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.
I. BACKGROUNDA. Facts
Gopher News Company (Gopher News) operated a print media wholesale distribution business in the Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota area. Gopher News' unionized workers were classified under two separate bargaining units—the drivers unit and the warehouse unit. Local No. 638 of the Miscellaneous Drivers, Helpers & Warehousemen's Union (International Brotherhood of Teamsters) (union) represented both units. Gerhardson, Hanek, Johnson, and Costello belonged to the drivers unit.
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Area Pension Fund (Central States) operated a defined benefit pension plan benefitting Gopher News employees. Upon retirement, the participants' monthly benefit payments under the plan depended on the age at which they retired and their term of service. Employees who retired after thirty years of service were eligible for the maximum monthly payment of approximately $3,000. Central States' plan included an “adverse selection” rule, which prohibited Gopher News from excluding younger workers from the plan.
Before 1992, both the drivers unit and the warehouse unit participated in the pension plan. In 1992, the warehouse unit elected to transition to a company-sponsored 401(k) plan, and Gopher News terminated the warehouse unit's pension plan. Although Gopher News also encouraged the drivers unit to accept a 401(k) plan, the drivers unit chose to retain the pension plan.
During the 1990s, the print media distribution business changed, and, as a result, Gopher News needed fewer full-time drivers. Gopher News began hiring “combination” workers to perform both driving and warehouse duties. These combination workers were classified under the warehouse unit's CBA and did not participate in the drivers' pension plan. Because the combination workers were able to make deliveries, Gopher News stopped hiring full-time drivers. By 2008, the parties here indicate the four appellants were the only remaining active members of the drivers unit.
During 2005, Gopher News, the drivers, and the union renegotiated the drivers' CBA. Although Gopher News favored transition to a 401(k) plan, the drivers bargained to continue participating in the pension plan for six more years, at which time all four drivers would qualify for the thirty-year pension payments. The union, negotiating on behalf of the drivers, made maintaining the drivers' pension plan a priority. During these negotiations, Central States became concerned Gopher News was not complying with its obligations under the pension plan. Central States alerted the union it intended to audit Gopher News. The union asked Central States to delay the audit until after the parties ratified a new CBA. Central States agreed.
Gopher News, the union, and the drivers adopted a new CBA, effective June 1, 2005. On January 3, 2006, the union sent a copy of the new CBA to Central States. Two days later, Central States informed Gopher News that Central States would audit Gopher News to (1) “[i]dentify all eligible plan participants,” and (2) “[v]erify that contributions were properly reported for all eligible plan participants.” Central States ultimately concluded Gopher News' use of combination workers to perform driving functions violated the adverse selection rule.
On January 31, 2007, Central States announced it was terminating Gopher News' participation in the pension plan, effective February 25, 2007. The drivers each requested that Central States reconsider its termination decision. Central States denied the requests in a letter dated April 18, 2007, and denied the drivers' appeal of that decision in a letter dated June 20, 2007.
B. Procedural History
On December 12, 2006, Central States sued Gopher News in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.2 The drivers moved to intervene on December 10, 2007, and the Illinois federal district court denied the motion on February 19, 2008. See Central States v. Gopher News, 542 F.Supp.2d 823, 829 (N.D.Ill.2008).
On February 26, 2008, the drivers filed the present action against Gopher News, Central States, and the union. The drivers sued (1) Central States for breach of fiduciary duty, (2) the union for breach of the duty of fair representation, and (3) Gopher News for breach of contract and a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1451. Gopher News filed a crossclaim against the union, alleging fraud and conspiracy and seeking declaratory judgment, indemnification, and contribution from the union for damages and costs incurred by Gopher News arising out of the union's alleged misconduct.
On March 31, 2011, the district court found the drivers' claims were untimely and granted summary judgment to Gopher News and the union on all of the drivers' claims. On August 29, 2011, the district court dismissed Gopher News' crossclaims against the union for lack of jurisdiction. The drivers appeal the dismissal of their claims and Gopher News cross-appeals the district court's denial of their crossclaims against the union. All claims by or against Central States have been resolved, and are not relevant to this appeal.
II. DISCUSSIONA. Drivers
We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds, construing all evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Roemmich v. Eagle Eye Dev., LLC, 526 F.3d 343, 348 (8th Cir.2008). We will affirm the district court only if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Roemmich, 526 F.3d at 348.
The drivers characterize their suit against Gopher News and the union as a “hybrid § 301/fair representation” claim arising out of § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185, and § 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), 29 U.S.C. § 160. See DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 163–65, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). The drivers' claim is governed by the NLRA's six-month statute of limitations. See id. at 169, 103 S.Ct. 2281;see also NLRA § 10(b), 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Such “claims accrue on the date the employee's grievance is finally rejected and his contractual remedies are exhausted.” Craft v. Auto., Petrol. & Allied Indus. Emps. Union, Local 618, 754 F.2d 800, 803 (8th Cir.1985). “When a grievance is ‘finally rejected,’ and when an employee has exhausted his contractual remedies obviously will vary depending upon the facts in any given case.” Id. The district court agreed with the parties that “the last possible date on which the claim could have accrued” was June 20, 2007, when Central States denied the drivers' appeal of Central States' termination of the drivers' pension fund.3 The drivers filed their complaint in the present action on February 26, 2008. This suit commenced more than six months after the statute of limitations began to run.
The drivers argue the statute of limitations should be tolled for the period during which the drivers unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the Northern District of Illinois litigation. The drivers claim, “[t]he general rule is that the filing of a motion to intervene tolls the running of the statutes of limitation,” and the district court erred in failing to apply this general rule in the present case.
The authorities the drivers cite do not support their position. The drivers rely on cases allowing successful motions to intervene to toll the limitations period for the successfully joined claims. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Canion v. Randall & Blake, 817 F.2d 1188, 1192 (5th Cir.1987) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. BNSF Ry. Co.
...Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq. The NLRA's arbitration requirement is jurisdictional, Gerhardson v. Gopher News Co. , 698 F.3d 1052, 1057-59 (8th Cir. 2012), even though NLRA preemption (" [San Diego Bldg. Trades Council, Millmen's Union, Local 2020 v. ] Garmon [359 U.......
-
Bray Sheet Metal Co. v. Int'l Ass'n of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transp. Workers Local Union No. 36-L
...decision, Gerhardson v. Gopher News Corporation, precludes this Court from determining that jurisdiction exists under § 301(a). 698 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir. 2012). In Gerhardson, the Eighth Circuit explained that, "Textron only permits a litigant to raise the validity of a contract as an affirma......
-
Sun River Energy, Inc. v. McMillan
...of suit without prejudice for lack of service on defendant within 120 days did not toll limitations period); Gerhardson v. Gopher News Co., 698 F.3d 1052, 1056 (8th Cir. 2012) (holding that plaintiff's failed motion to intervene in prior action against defendant did not toll limitations per......
-
Int'l Ass'n of Sheet M 10 v. A-1 Refrigeration of Hibbing, Inc.
...validity of a contract as an affirmative defense; it does not allow such claims to be asserted offensively." Gerhardson v. Gopher News Co., 698 F.3d 1052, 1058 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Accordingly, while "the invalidity of a contract may be raised defensively in a contract enforc......