Waggoner v. Wm. Radkovich Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 April 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2374,78-2374 |
| Citation | 620 F.2d 206 |
| Parties | 104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3142 William C. WAGGONER et al., etc., Appellants, v. WM. RADKOVICH COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Wayne Jett, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Edward B. Robin, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for appellee; Richard W. Esterkin, Beverly Hills, Cal., Shapiro, Robin, Cohen & Posell, Los Angeles, Cal., on brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.
Before PECK, * ANDERSON and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
Trustees of four employee benefit trusts sued Wm. Radkovich Company, Inc. to recover contributions for an employee who the trustees contended was covered by a collective bargaining agreement (agreement) between Radkovich and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 12. The district court entered judgment for Radkovich. Recent decisions of this court require that we reverse.
The agreement at issue incorporates the terms of a Master Labor Agreement (MLA) between Local 12 and the Southern California General Contractors, which agreement in turn incorporates the terms of the four trust agreements. Under the terms of the MLA, employers make contributions to the trust for all hours of employment for each foreman whom they hire, but they make no contributions for superintendents because the MLA exempts them from coverage. (Art. I, P B-4). A foreman's main duty is to supervise operating engineers, and, under limited circumstances, a foreman may perform operating engineers' work. The MLA does not specify the duties of a superintendent.
Radkovich employed Janes as a "superintendent" for 12 months over an 18-month period (January, 1974 June, 1975). Janes performed some superintendent's work and some foreman's work. The court below found that Janes was employed as a superintendent during the overwhelming majority of the time that he worked for Radkovich, but that there were times when Janes performed work similar to that normally performed by employees under the MLA. Under undisputed evidence at trial, this covered work was not de minimis.
In Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline Co., 601 F.2d 456, 459 (9th Cir. 1979), which was decided after the district court granted judgment for the defendant, this court held that the same MLA "requires employers to make fringe benefit contributions for all hours worked by (or paid) employees who perform any work covered by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co.
...work, even though the employee may in fact have spent part of his time performing non-MLA duties. See, e.g., Waggoner v. Wm. Radkovich Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 206, 207 (9th Cir.1980); Burke v. Lenihan, 606 F.2d 840, 841 (9th Cir.1979); Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline Co., 601 F.2d at 458-59 (9th The......
-
Thelin v. Mitchell
...Burke v. Lenihan, 606 F.2d 840 (9th Cir., 1979); Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline, 601 F.2d 456 (9th Cir., 1979), Waggoner v. Wm. RadKovich Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 206 (9th Cir., 1980). 3. Suits to recover damages incurred by Trust Funds created pursuant to collective bargaining agreements are proper......
-
Trs. of the Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 13 Defined Contribution Pension Trust for Southern Nevada v. Marbella Flooring, Inc.
...for the collection of fringe benefit contributions are approved of and well within the mandates of ERISA. Waggoner v. Wm. Radkovich Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1980); Burke v. Lenihan, 606 F.2d 840 (9th Cir. 1979); Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline Co., 601 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1979). In fact,......
-
Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. Cundiff, CV 82-5103-FW.
...Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline Co., 601 F.2d 456, (9th Cir.1979), Burke v. Lenihan, 606 F.2d 840 (9th Cir.1979), and Waggoner v. Wm. Radkovich Co., Inc., 620 F.2d 206 (9th Cir.1980), the Ninth Circuit has interpreted and enforced the identical language in the Master Labor Agreement between Loca......