Orrand v. Scassa Asphalt, Inc.
| Decision Date | 28 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2:12-cv-1131 |
| Parties | RAYMOND ORRAND, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCASSA ASPHALT, INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
OPINION AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 23). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiffs' motion is GRANTED.
This is a lawsuit against Defendant, Scassa Asphalt, Inc., (Scassa) for unpaid contributions to a number of labor union funds. Plaintiffs bring suit through Raymond Orrand, Administrator for the Trustees of the Ohio Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Plan, the Trustees of the Ohio Operating Engineers Pension Fund, the Trustees of the Ohio Operating Engineers Apprenticeship Fund, and the Trustees for the Ohio Operating Engineers Education and Safety Fund. ). Plaintiffs claim, through affidavits of Orrand, Douglas Baker (Auditor of the Ohio Operating Engineers Fringe Benefits Programs), and Richard Dalton (President of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18) that Scassa should have, but did not, make contributions to the various union funds from February 1, 2009 through September 30, 2013. .
According to the affidavit of Nick Scassa, President of Scassa Asphalt, in February 2009, Scassa Asphalt was a small company. (Doc. 30, Ex. 1, Scassa Aff. at ¶ 2). Most of the work (paving jobs for small municipalities) was performed by Nick Scassa personally, or his brother, Ettore Scassa. Id. In early February 2009, a representative of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18, (Local 18) approached Scassa. Id. at ¶ 3. Scassa had been, at the time, experiencing interference from a local laborers' union. Id. The Local 18 representative said that if Scassa joined Local 18, it would no longer have problems with the local laborers' union. Id.
Local 18 presented Scassa with two agreement pages. Id. at ¶ 4. The first page is the short-form agreement between Scassa and Local 18. (Doc. 30, Ex. 1, sub-Ex A., Scassa Agmnts. at 1). With regard to Scassa's duty to pay into union funds, it says this:
3) The Company is not represented by any employer bargaining unit nor has any employer bargaining unit authority to act as an agent for the Company; however, the Company agrees to adopt and accept all the terms, wage rates and conditions of the 2007-2010 Ohio Highway Heavy Agreement (hereafter "The Agreement") except as modified herein. The Company further agrees to make contributions to the Health and Welfare Fund, Pension Fund, Apprenticeship Fund and Safety Training and Educational Trust Fund as outlined in said Ohio Highway Heavy Agreement.
Id. Scassa was not provided with, and apparently did not ask for, a copy of the Ohio Highway Heavy Agreement. (Doc. 30, Ex. 1, Scassa Aff. at ¶ 4). Nonetheless, Scassa, in order to avoid further trouble with the local laborers' union, executed the form on February 6, 2009. (Doc. 30, Ex. 1, sub-Ex. A, Scassa Agmnts. at 1). Scassa also executed a bonding agreement recognizing that it was bound to make contributions to the trust funds and contracting with a bonding company to provide a bond of $50,000 should it fail to do so. (Doc. 30, Ex. 1, sub-Ex. A, ScassaAgmnts. at 2).1 Nearly simultaneously, on February 7, 2009, Scassa executed another form stating that it would pay a minimum of 2000 hours per year to the Ohio Operating Engineers Fringe Benefit Program "as stipulated in the collective bargaining agreement" on behalf of Nick Scassa. .
In mid-February 2009, shortly after Scassa executed the forms provided by Local 18, members of the local laborers' union again interfered in Scassa's business. (Doc. 30, Ex. 1, Scassa Aff at ¶ 6). They arrived at a job site in Massillon, Ohio, and one of them physically assaulted a subcontractor. Id, Nick Scassa contacted the Local 18 representative and asked for help but Local 18 declined to intervene to protect Scassa from the local laborers' union. Id. at ¶ 7. Nick Scassa then verbally informed the Local 18 representative that Scassa Asphalt was terminating its relationship with Local 18. Id.; (see also Doc. 31, Ex. 1, Dalton Aff. at ¶¶ 8-9). However, the short-form agreement that Scassa had signed contained the following language:
This Agreement shall be effective as of the date set forth and shall remain in full force and effect unless modified by mutual agreement of the parties until expressly terminated by notice in writing from one party to the other party at least sixty (60) days prior to its anniversary date.
(Doc. 30, Ex. 1, sub-Ex. A, Scassa Agmnts. at 1).
After approximately a year, in February 2010, Scassa received a letter from Local 18. . The letter was to "notify [Scassa] that the Ohio Highway Heavy . . . Agreement[], between your company or association and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 18 expire[s] April 30, 2010." Id. In the next two paragraphs the letter went on to state its goal:
Id. Scassa, already considering the relationship orally terminated, and not wishing to begin anew, made no response to the letter. (Doc. 30, Ex. 1, Scassa Aff. at ¶ 8).
On October 24, 2013, agents for Local 18 conducted audits - one assuming that Scassa was required to pay 2000 hours per year in contributions, regardless of whether the business actually worked 2000 hours a year or not, and one assuming that Scassa Asphalt only owed contributions for those hours actually worked by its three employees (Nick Scassa, Ettore Scassa, and S.M. Strab). (Compare Doc. 23, Ex. D, Baker 1st Aff. with Doc. 31, Ex. 2, Baker 2d Aff.). The specific figures generated by these audits, under the assumptions detailed above, are not contested by Scassa (though Scassa does contest the notion that it had a duty to pay) and are summarized as follows:
2000 Hours Assumption
Actual Hours Assumption
Health & Welfare Plan
$76,450.89
$34,744.41
Pension Fund
$58,064.84
$23,968.01
Apprenticeship Fund
$6,381.55
$2,750.81
Education & Safety Fund
$458.90
$209.60
Total
$141,356.18
(Compare Doc. 23, Ex. D, Baker 1st Aff. at ¶ 24 with Doc. 31, Ex. 2, Baker 2d Aff. at ¶ 7). Scassa, moreover, specifically admits that it has made no payments to most of the funds and the audits by Plaintiffs confirm that Scassa has, in fact, made no payments to any of the funds. ). In addition to the past-due sums, Local 18 asserts an entitlement to interest on delinquent contributions at a rate of 18% per annum, calculated fromthe date the alleged delinquency was discovered (the date of the audit), as well as litigation fees and costs. .
Summary judgment is appropriate "if the movant shows that 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).
The "party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions" of the record which demonstrate "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). The burden then shifts to the nonmoving party who "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56). "The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 255 (citing Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 158-59 (1970)). A genuine dispute of material fact exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248; see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Lid. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (). Consequently, the central issue is "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 251-52.
Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to summary judgment because Scassa cannot dispute the figures revealed by the audit. (Doc. 23, Mot. for SMJ at 4 & in passim). Scassa resists,arguing that there is a genuine issue of fact as to what the extent of its obligation to pay was. (Doc. 30, Re. in Opp. to SMJ at 6).
A. The Contractual Relationship Between Local 18 and Scassa
The essential questions here concern whether Local 18 and Scassa reached a valid contract to require Scassa to pay into the funds and if so - what the extent of it was. These are questions of contract law.
Somewhat atypically in this contract case, jurisdiction over this matter does not arise from diversity, but from the federal laws governing actions for violations of collective bargaining agreements. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. §§ 185, 1132, 1145 (2012). Accordingly, the Erie doctrine is not invoked and there is no mandate from Erie and progeny that this Court use the contract law of Ohio. See Erie R.R....
To continue reading
Request your trial