Producers Dairy Delivery Co., Inc. v. Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust Fund

• Decision Date: 27 August 1981
• Docket Number: Nos. 79-4127,79-4154,s. 79-4127
• Citation: 654 F.2d 625
• Parties: 108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2510, 92 Lab.Cas. P 12,977, 2 Employee Benefits Ca 1834 PRODUCERS DAIRY DELIVERY CO., INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST FUND, a Trust Fund, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and Francis I. Cohea and Ace N. Work, Jr., Applicants for Intervention and Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 625

654 F.2d 625

108 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2510, 92 Lab.Cas. P 12,977,

2 Employee Benefits Ca 1834

PRODUCERS DAIRY DELIVERY CO., INC., a California Corporation, Plaintiff- Appellee, v. WESTERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST FUND, a Trust Fund, et al., Defendants-Appellants and Francis I. Cohea and Ace N. Work, Jr., Applicants for Intervention and Appellants.

Nos. 79-4127, 79-4154.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 11, 1980.

Decided Aug. 27, 1981.

Harry Finkle, Patterson & Taggart, Fresno, Cal. (argued), for Producers Dairy; William A. Quinlan, Doty, Quinlan, Kershaw & Fanucchi, Fresno, Cal., on brief.

Noble K. Gregory, San Francisco, Cal. (argued), for Western Conference of Teamsters; C. Douglas Floyd, Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro, San Francisco, Cal., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Before HUG and SCHROEDER, Circuit Judges, and GRANT, ^* District Judge.

HUG, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellee Producer's Dairy Delivery Co., Inc. ("Producers") brought this action against the Western Conference of Teamsters Trust Fund ("the Trust") under section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 186, alleging that the Trust was retaining illegally a portion of the contributions made into the Trust by Producers on behalf of its employees. Producers sought an accounting, declaratory relief, restitution, and damages. The district court ordered that contributions made by Producers after February 7, 1972, the date on which the court determined that collective bargaining negotiations had reached an impasse, should be refunded to Producers. We reverse.

I FACTS

The Trust is a pension fund established pursuant to section 302(c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C § 186(c). The Act provides that it is unlawful for an employer to contribute money to an employee trust fund unless "the detailed basis on which such payments are to be made is specified in a written agreement with the employer ...." 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5)(B).

Producers entered into a collective bargaining agreement with their employees' representative, Teamsters Local 517 ("the Union"), which provided the terms under which Producers would make contributions to the Trust. This collective bargaining agreement expired on September 1, 1971; Producers and the Union had at that time already begun to negotiate in an effort to reach a new agreement. The main issues involved in the negotiations concerned the unwillingness of Producers to continue to match substantially the wages and benefits provided employees under the master agreement of the Milk and Ice Cream Employees multi-employer bargaining association, and the affect of the federal 5.5% wage and price control policy then in effect. These issues were not resolved during the bargaining process, however, and Producers continued to make contributions to the Trust during the negotiations. The Union ultimately called a strike and Producers discontinued the contributions in June, 1974.

In August, 1974 Producers's negotiator demanded a refund of all contributions made after September 1, 1971, the expiration date of the collective bargaining agreement. Producers was advised by the company which operated the Trust's administrative office that refunds could be made only if the employees on whose behalf the contributions were made released the Trust from liability. Producers then filed this action.

Following a bench trial, the district court held that all contributions made to the Trust by Producers after February 7, 1972, the date on which the court determined that collective bargaining negotiations had reached an impasse, must be refunded to Producers. The Trust raises numerous issues on appeal, including questions relating to the district court's impasse determination and the court's refusal to allow certain former employees of Producers to intervene.

II DISCUSSION

The purpose of section 302's restriction on payments to employee representatives in the absence of a written agreement is to "prevent employers from tampering with the loyalty of union officials, and to prevent union officials from extorting tribute from employers." Alvares v. Erickson, 514 F.2d 156, 164 (9th Cir. 1975). Section 302(e) provides that the district courts shall have jurisdiction "to restrain violations of this section ...." 29 U.S.C. § 186(e).

Producers's argument that it is entitled to receive a refund of the contributions it made into the Trust is based largely on the assertion that, under the Act, it was illegal for the Trust to receive or...