INTERNATIONAL BRO. OF TEAMSTERS, ETC. v. Kebert Const. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 January 1964
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 963.
• Citation: 225 F. Supp. 58
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, COUNCIL NO. 40, and its Affiliated Local Unions, Plaintiffs, v. KEBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

225 F. Supp. 58

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, COUNCIL NO. 40, and its Affiliated Local Unions, Plaintiffs, v. KEBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 963.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

January 8, 1964.

Gatz, Cohen, O'Brien & Maurizi, Joseph Maurizi, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs.

Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig, John Britton, Erie, Pa., for defendant.

WILLSON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs are the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Council No. 40, and its Affiliated Local Unions, some 14 in number. Defendant is Kebert Construction Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation, having its principal office and place of business in Meadville in this District. Plaintiffs aver that the jurisdiction is pursuant to Section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act and Title 29 U.S.C.A. Section 185. In the Complaint it is averred that defendant is a member of the Northwestern Pennsylvania Heavy Constructors, Inc., an association of contractors doing business in 11 northwestern Pennsylvania counties, including Crawford County wherein Meadville is situate. A copy of a wage agreement between plaintiffs and the Northwestern Pennsylvania Heavy Constructors, Inc., is attached to the Complaint which fixes wage rates according to certain classifications, and which, inter alia, provides that the association members deduct ten cents per man hour worked by employees and pay that sum into the Western Pennsylvania Heavy Construction Industry Teamsters Welfare Fund "* * * under the terms, conditions and obligations set forth in the Trust Agreement for that fund."

Plaintiffs, in their Complaint, allege that defendant has failed to pay the sum of $2,483.35, which is due and owing under the Welfare Fund provision of the Agreement, and that further additional monies are also due and owing and unreported by the defendant. Judgment is demanded against the defendant for the $2,483.35, which has been ascertained to be due and for any additional monies which an accounting reveals to be due and owing, together with interest. An accounting is demanded for the period from July 1, 1959 to and including December 31, 1961.

Defendant has moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b) (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it appears from the Complaint that the Trustees of the Western Pennsylvania Heavy Construction Industry Teamsters Welfare Fund referred to in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint are indispensable parties and that the Trustees of said Welfare Fund have not been joined as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend that they are the real parties in interest and as such may bring the suit without the joinder of the Trustees of the Welfare Fund, and as authority cite several cases including Local Union No. 641 of Amal. Butcher Workmen v. Capitol Packing Co., 32 F. R.D. 4, 7, (D.C.Colorado, 1963), which plaintiffs contend holds that the Trustees are not indispensable parties. However, in the Capitol Packing case the suit was based on an agreement which antedated the designation of Trustees, and the Court held that there was "* * * no opportunity for interests not before the court to be adversely affected by a decision herein." In International Union, United A., A. & A. I. Wkrs. of America, U. A. W., A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Textron, Inc., 312 F.2d 688 (6 Cir. 1963), and United Construction Workers Division of Dist. 50, United Mine Workers of America v. Electro Chem. Engrav. Co., 175 F.Supp. 54 (S.D.N.Y., 1959), relied on by plaintiffs, the issue was whether under the Labor-Management Relations Act the Federal Court had jurisdiction of an action wherein unions sought recovery of unpaid contributions to employee funds allegedly due under collective bargaining agreements. These cases cited by plaintiffs do not present the same issue as is...