United Marine Division v. Essex Transportation Co.
Decision Date | 03 November 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 11328.,11328. |
Parties | UNITED MARINE DIVISION, I. L. A., LOCAL 333, A. F. OF L., an Unincorporated Association, James P. McAllister, Edward Morris, Lloyd Dalzell, William V. Bradley, Louis Ziegler and Joseph O'Hare, Appellants, v. ESSEX TRANSPORTATION CO., a Corporation of The State of New Jersey, Charles E. McCarren, Rita Keyasko and John J. McCloskey. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Maurice Levinthal, Paterson, N. J., Roman Beck, New York City (Ward & Levinthal, Paterson, N. J., on the brief), for appellants.
Before MARIS, GOODRICH and KALODNER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment for the defendant in a suit brought to compel the payment by the employer of money to a pension trust for employees.1
The plaintiff alleges that the defendant company orally agreed to make payments to six trustees of a welfare fund. The defendants say that this oral promise, if it was made, is insufficient to hold them liable for the payments because of a provision in the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq. The district court was persuaded that this position was correct and ordered judgment for the defendants without submitting to the trier of the fact the question whether the promise to pay was made as alleged. We are, therefore, confronted at this point with a question of law solely and this question involves the interpretation of Section 186(c)(5) (B) of the statute referred to.
The two provisions to which we must give attention are as follows:
It is undisputed that at the time of the alleged oral agreement there was a welfare fund set up which was operated by six trustees, three of whom were chosen by the plaintiff union and three by the Marine Towing and Transportation Employers' Association. This fund was set up by an agreement in writing and the trustees had also established, through an agreement in writing, relations with a bank of deposit for custody of the funds and payment as specified in their agreement. But Essex Transportation Co. was not a member of this association and, therefore, not a party to any contract which the association made with the union.
We are faced with the question, therefore, whether an agreement such as the one alleged comes within the prohibition of the language quoted from Section 186. There is no doubt that the employees of Essex were employed in an industry affecting commerce. Our question becomes whether an agreement to pay money to these six trustees is a promise to pay to "any representative of any of his employees."
We approach the question with the thought in mind that these welfare funds represent a social device to be encouraged. See Upholsterers' International Union of North America v. Leathercraft Furniture Company, D.C. E.D.Pa.1949, 82 F.Supp. 570. We are also conscious of the fact that abuses in the use of these funds had been the subject of public discussion. It was thought that in some instances employers had been induced to agree to pay into welfare funds over which they had no control and, indeed, over which members of the union itself had no knowledge or control. This appears quite clearly in the discussion of this portion of the Taft-Hartley Act when the matter was before the Congress.
Thus, Senator Taft stated: 93 Cong. Rec. 4746-7 (1947).
Senator Byrd stated: 93 Cong. Rec. 4678 (1947).
Senator Ball stated: "* * * the sole purpose of the amendment is not to prohibit welfare funds, but to make sure that they are legitimate trust funds, used actually for the specified benefits to the employees of the employers who contribute to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Associated Contractors of Essex County, Inc. v. Laborers Intern. Union of North America
...control." Arroyo v. United States, 359 U.S. 419, 425-26, 79 S.Ct. 864, 868, 3 L.Ed.2d 915 (1959); accord, United Marine Div. v. Essex Transp. Co., 216 F.2d 410, 412 (3d Cir. 1954); Moyer v. Kirkpatrick, 265 F.Supp. 348 (E.D.Pa.1967), aff'd 387 F.2d 955 (3d Cir. 1968) (per curiam). Since the......
-
Toensing v. Brown
...The court was not describing the general obligations of trustees under § 186(c)(5). The language in United Marine Division v. Essex Transportation Co., 216 F.2d 410, 412 (3 Cir. 1954), that certain trustees were not representatives of the employees, was used in holding that a promise to mak......
-
Ames v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802
...does not bar the Union Treasurer from acting as collecting agent for the trust fund. See also United Marine Division, ILA Local 333 v. Essex Transportation Co., 216 F.2d 410 (3rd Cir. 1954); Compare Ware v. Adams, 47 Lab.Cas. ¶ 18,297 In any event, there has been no contention by plaintiffs......
-
Paramount Plastering, Inc. v. LOCAL NO. 2, ETC.
...Further support for this proposition is contained in our earlier case of United Marine Division, ILA, Local 333, A. F. L. v. Essex Transportation Co., 3 Cir., 1954, 216 F.2d 410, 412, where we held that `They the Congress were forbidding money to be paid to representatives of unions unless ......