Wilder v. United Mine Workers of America
| Citation | 346 S.W.2d 27 |
| Parties | George W. WILDER, Appellant, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA and Welfare and Retirement Fund, et al., Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 21 April 1961 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Lester L. Parrott, Pineville, for appellant.
Lay & Knuckles, Pineville, for appellees.
Appellant, George W. Wilder, filed a complaint in the Bell Circuit Court by which he sought to obtain pension benefits from the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund which will hereinafter be designated by the word 'Fund.' He named as defendants the Fund, itself; J. W. Ridings, President of District No. 19, United Mine Workers of America; and A. C. Barnes, who was averred to be the Regional Director of the Fund. Service of process was had upon Ridings and Barnes.
J. W. Ridings filed a motion to quash the return of service of summons and to dismiss the claim. At about the same time, John L. Lewis, Henry G. Schmidt and Josephine Roche-non-resident trustees of the Fund-appeared speically for the sole purpose of contesting the jurisdiction of the court to entertain or adjudicate matters pertaining to the administration of the Fund. They asked the court to set aside the service of process upon J. W. Ridings and A. C. Barnes insofar as such service might relate to or fix liability upon the Fund, and further to adjudge that it had no jurisdiction of the claim asserted by appellant Wilder. Affidavits and exhibits were filed, and the court, after a joint submission by the parties, held it had no jurisdiction over the Fund or its trustees and no jurisdiction over the subject matter upon which the complaint was based. The complaint was dismissed as to the Fund, its trustees and A. C. Barnes. By a subsequent judgment J. W. Ridings also was discharged. Wilder appeals.
The National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement executed in Washington, D. C. on March 5, 1950 by various coal operators and the International Union, United Mine Workers of America, resolved many items of differences between them. One pertained to the Fund. The operators agreed to pay into this Fund the sum of thirty cents for each ton of coal produced for sale or use, and:
'Such Fund shall have its place of business in Washington, District of Columbia, and it shall be operated by a Board of Trustees, one of whom shall be appointed as representative of the employers, one of whom shall be appointed as representative of the United Mine Workers of America and one of whom shall be a neutral party, selected by the other two.'
This is its nature:
'It is agreed that this Fund is an irrevocable trust created pursuant to Section 302(c) of the 'Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947,' and shall endure as long as the purposes for its creation shall exist.'
The general purpose of Section 302 of the Act (29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 186) was to prohibit employers from paying money or delivering other things of value to any representatives of their employees and thus to prevent kickbacks, bribery and other immoral practices (William Dunbar Company v. Painters & Glaziers Dist. Council No. 51, D.C., 129 F.Supp. 417) and preserve the integrity of labor-management relationship (United States v. Brennan, D.C., 134 F.Supp. 42). See also Arroyo v. United States, 359 U.S. 419, 79 S.Ct. 864, 3 L.Ed.2d 915, and United States v. Lavery, D.C., 161 F.Supp. 283.
The section does not preclude all payments. It is provided that payments may be made into a trust fund established by the representative for the benefit of employees and their families for medical care, compensation for injuries, unemployment benefits, et cetera, but with this strict limitation as to pensions:
'And (c) such payments as are intended to be used for the purpose of providing pensions or annuities for employees are made to a separate trust which provides that funds held therein cannot be used for any purpose other than paying such pensions or annuities.'
In Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corporation, 6 Cir., 259 F.2d 346, 355, it was held: 'Though sui generis, union welfare funds created under the authority of 29 U.S.C.A. Sec. 186(c), are similar in some respects to charitable trusts.' The opinion was modified on other grounds by the Supreme Court. 361 U.S. 459, 80 S.Ct. 489, 4 L.Ed.2d 442.
The trial court found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. Davis
...these claims is that of the District of Columbia, under whose jurisdiction the Fund is administered. 3 Wilder v. United Mine Workers Welfare and Retirement Fund, 346 S.W.2d 27 (Ky. 1961). The District Court went beyond application of Kentucky's conflict rules in its holding. Applying the de......
-
Salyers v. Allied Corp.
...suits to recover pension benefits were brought in state courts under the law of trusts. See e.g., Wilder v. United Mine Workers Welfare and Retirement Fund, 346 S.W.2d 27 (1961). In federal courts such actions were brought under diversity jurisdiction. E.g., Hall v. Mullins, 621 F.2d 253 (6......
-
George v. Lewis
...this same Trust Fund has been decided which can be construed in support of defendants' argument. See, e. g., Wilder v. United Mine Workers of America, 346 S.W.2d 27 (Ky.1961); Hobbs v. Lewis, 197 Tenn. 44, 270 S.W. 2d 352 (1954); United Mine Workers of America, Local Union No. 5834, of Thea......
-
Rittenberry v. Lewis
...rule in the Hobbs case appears to have been followed in some other jurisdictions: see Wilder v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund, (Court of Appeals, Kentucky) 346 S.W.2d 27; United Mine Workers of America v. Daniel, (Court of Appeals, Kentucky) 317 S.W.2d 183; Fike......