Iannacone v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers Pension Benefit Fund

• Docket Number: CV-22-01599-PHX-DWL
• Decision Date: 04 August 2023
• Parties: Quido lannacone, Plaintiff, v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Pension Benefit Fund, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Arizona

1

Quido lannacone, Plaintiff, v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Pension Benefit Fund, Defendant.

No. CV-22-01599-PHX-DWL

United States District Court, D. Arizona

August 4, 2023

ORDER

Dominic W. Lanza United States District Judge

In this ERISA action, Plaintiff Quido Iannacone, who is proceeding pro se, challenges the denial of his claim for pension benefits administered by Defendant International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Pension Benefit Fund (“PBF”). For the following reasons, the denial of benefits is affirmed.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Plaintiff has been a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (“IBEW”) since February 1 1956. (Doc. 16-1 at 42.) Under IBEW's constitution “[a]n ‘A' member who retires from the electrical industry after December 31, 2006, shall be entitled to benefits in accordance with [certain] rules of eligibility.”^[1] (Doc. 16-2 at 1.) One of those rules is that “[i]t is a condition for admission to pension benefits, including vested pension right and continuation thereof, that the member shall not perform any work of any kind coming under the I.B.E.W.'s jurisdiction.” (Id. at 4.) Also, although a “retired member shall be permitted to attend L.U.^[2] meetings, and, with the L.U.'s approval, have a voice at such meetings,” such a person “shall not have a vote.” (Id.)

In February 2006, Plaintiff asked to begin receiving his IBEW pension benefits. (Doc. 16-1 at 42.)

In March 2006, Plaintiff wrote a letter to the international president of IBEW, requesting that his A membership be transferred to a B.A. card upon approval for his pension benefits. (Id. at 40.) In relevant part, Plaintiff explained: “As an A member, I have to decide whether to go on pension or keep my card active. I have reached a point in my life that says I should request pension benefits.” (Id.) In response, PFB Trustee Jon Walters explained to Plaintiff that if his card was updated to B.A. status, he would, in compliance with Section 6(a) of Article XI of the IBEW constitution,^[3] lose his “continuous good standing, which would cause the loss of pension and death benefits.” (Id. at 38.)

On April 12, 2006, Plaintiff was approved for early retirement along with an $184 monthly pension. (Id. at 18.) The accompanying letter further instructed Plaintiff that “no further dues payments to the International Office will be required of you.” (Id.)

On July 11, 2013, Plaintiff wrote another letter to the then-international president of IBEW explaining that he was concerned about the fact that retired members “give up the right to vote in local union affairs.” (Id. at 14.) Plaintiff explained that he had “no intention of picking up the tools” but wanted to maintain his “pension of 184 dollars per month” and the privileges accorded to him by paying dues. (Id.) He proposed “allow[ing] retired A members to have an option without giving up their pension.” (Id.)

On January 20, 2016, Scott Barker, the Business Manager of IBEW Local Union 266, sent a letter to the IBEW Pension Department explaining that “as of February 1, 2016, [Plaintiff] will be redepositing his ‘A' ticket into Local 266 and returning to his trade as a Journeyman Lineman. Please freeze his pension until further notice.” (Id. at 27. See also id. at 16 [confirming Plaintiff's good standing as an A member as of January 20, 2016].)

On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff wrote a letter to PBF requesting reinstatement of his pension benefits. (Id. at 19. See also id. at 31.) Plaintiff acknowledged that “[f]our years ago I reinstated my card, came off pension to participate in the local union 266.” (Id. at 19.) Plaintiff asserted: “I have not worked in the electrical contracting industry, why can't I receive my PBF pension so long as I am not actively working at the trade. I would like to continue paying my per capita, my out of jurisdiction dues and my PBF dues.” (Id.) Plaintiff's rationale for continuing to pay dues despite not working the trade was that he was being treated “as a second-class citizen . . . at the local”-meaning Plaintiff was not being granted the same opportunity to speak that he previously enjoyed when attending meetings at his local union. (Id. [“The former business manager before sending me a letter saying that he would deny my re-upping my card tried to muzzle me at the local union meetings that I attend. I know what the Constitution reads and I know while I'm on pension all dues and per capita are waived and that I had a voice if granted by the union. The business manager thought that he was the union.”].)

On July 8, 2020, PBF Trustee Kenneth Cooper responded to Plaintiff's request for reinstatement of pension benefits. (Id. at 31.) The letter explained that Plaintiff's request was denied because “IBEW records show you were placed in a return to trade status effective February 2016. . . . Unfortunately, you cannot be placed back on PBF pension while continuing to pay dues.” (Id.) Plaintiff was advised that “once you are ready to stop paying dues, please notify your local union office to place you back on PBF pension.” (Id.)

On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff sent a letter to Cooper explaining that his “intention in 2016 was to run for union office” and that he “never violated the prohibition on work.” (Id. at 12.)

On September 3, 2020, Plaintiff sent a letter to IBEW's International Executive Council (“IEC”) explaining:

I . . . wish to appeal the letter sent to me from Brother Cooper dated July 8, 2020. I have enclosed correspondence of interest and other pieces of information. I ask that all suspended pension payments withheld be paid to me. I also demand that I have all the rights afforded to as a paid member be continued as I receive my pension benefits. I have not worked with the tools since 2004.

(Id. at 8.)

On January 8, 2021, the IEC denied Plaintiff's appeal and affirmed Cooper's decision. (Id. at 1-2.) The IEC cited Article XI, Section 6(c) of the IBEW constitution, which provides that “the per capita taxed owed by ‘A' members who are otherwise eligible for pension benefits is waived.” (Id.) The IEC continued: “This reflects the long-standing position of the IBEW and the IEC that the payment of dues (and active participation in one's local union) is inconsistent with the receipt of retirement benefits. Active members are therefore precluded from receiving pensions, and retirees are precluded from participation in local union affairs.” (Id. at 1.) The IEC emphasized that the same interpretation is articulated in “Questions and Answers Concerning the Provisions and Procedures of the IBEW Pension Benefit Fund, question and answer 69, which states that, ‘A member receiving pension benefits is not required to pay any L.U. dues or assessments. The member's status in his local union is, in effect, that of an honorary member. Thus, the member's participation in L.U. meetings is limited.'” (Id.) Therefore, the IEC concluded: “[W]e have determined that you are not eligible to receive a pension for any month in which you paid dues to your local union. You will be eligible to receive a retirement benefit at such time that you agree to forgo active participation in your local union and your dues payments cease. . . . For the above reasons, the appeal of the denial of reinstatement of your PBF benefit is affirmed.” (Id. at 1-2.)

On July 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 1-2.) The complaint, which seeks relief under § 502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), alleges in relevant part as follows:

Defendant has stopped my pension payment when I proceeded to establish my right to run for office in the I.B.E.W. local 266 elections. The I.B.E.W. Classified me as working with the tools and therefore stopped my pension. I am classified as an A-card member since I joined the I.B.E.W. in Feb.1956.

My pension dues is funded by my monthly payments with no contribution from the I.B.E.W. I have not worked since 2005. The I.B.E.W. waived my per-capita dues and made me a honorary of which I did not want and did not give the option to maintain my union card.

(Id. at 3-4.) As damages, Plaintiff seeks “[d]enied pension payments since March 1 st[,] 2016 till present in the amount of 184.00 dollars a month.” (Id. at 6.)

On September 20, 2022, Defendant timely removed this action to federal court. (Doc. 1.)

On November 15, 2022, Defendants filed the administrative record. (Doc. 16.)

On February 15, 2023, Defendant filed the pending motion for summary judgment, which is now fully briefed. (Docs. 22-24, 26.)^[4]

DISCUSSION

I. Legal Standard

As noted, Plaintiff's claim is governed by § 502(a)(1)(B) of ERISA. That provision states that a “participant or beneficiary” may bring a civil action “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan, or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B).

“District courts review a decision to deny or terminate benefits under an ERISA plan ‘under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.'” Gatti v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 415 F.3d 978, 981 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101, 115 (1989)). “When the plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits, that determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Id.

Here, Section 6(h) of Article XI of the IBEW constitution states:

Interpretations, Definitions and Decisions. The I.E.C. is hereby granted discretionary authority

...