The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, IN THEIR Case No. 20-cv-05416-DMR
CAPACITIES AS TRUSTEES OF THE
8 LABORERS HEALTH AND WELFARE
TRUST FUND FOR NORTHERN FINDINGS OF FACT AND
9 CALIFORNIA, et al., CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
10 Plaintiffs,
11 v.
12 STEVEN SCOTT SLAUSON,
13 Defendant.
14
15 Plaintiffs Boards of Trustees for the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern
16 California, Laborers Pension Trust Fund for Northern California, Laborers Vacation-Holiday
17 Trust Fund for Northern California, and Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern
18 California filed the complaint alleging that Defendant Steven Scott Slauson, individually and dba
19 Triple S Electric Co. (“Triple S”), breached the terms of a collective bargaining agreement in
20 violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and the
21 Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185, by failing to pay employee fringe
22 benefit contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and audit fees.
23
The court held a bench trial.1 Following the trial, the parties submitted proposed findings
24 of fact and conclusions of law. [Docket Nos. 99 (Pls.’ Prop. FF/CL), 100 (Def.’s Prop. FF/CL).]
25 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), the court makes the following findings of fact
26 and conclusions of law.
27
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1
1. The Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California; Laborers Pension
2
Trust Fund for Northern California; Laborers Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund for Northern
3
California; and the Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund for Northern California
4
administer contributions from employers on behalf of the Laborers’ International Union of
5
North America (“Laborers Union”). TTI 100-01. The Trust Funds are employee benefit
6
plans created by written Trust Agreements subject to and pursuant to section 302 of the
7
LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 186, and are multi-employer employee benefit plans within the
8
meaning of sections 3, 4 and 502 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002, 1003 and 1132. Exs. 5
9
(Trust Agreement, Pension Trust Fund), 6 (Trust Agreement, Health and Welfare Trust
10
Fund), 7 (Trust Agreement, Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund), 8 (Trust Agreement, Training
11
and Retraining Trust Fund).
12
2. Triple S is a licensed electrical contractor. It is a for-profit entity solely owned by Stephen
13
Scott Slauson. [Docket No. 70 (Jt. Pretrial Statement) at 8-15 (Joint Statement of
14
Undisputed Facts, “JSUF”), 1, 2.] At all times relevant, Triple S was an employer within
15
the meaning of section 3(5) and section 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1002(5), 1145, and an
16
employer in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of section 301 of the
17
LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185.
18
3. On March 21, 2008, Slauson executed a Memorandum Agreement on behalf of Triple S.
19
JSUF 4, Ex. 4 (Memorandum Agreement). The Memorandum Agreement states that it is
20
between “the undersigned individual employer and the Northern California District
21
Council of Laborers for and on behalf of all affiliated Local Unions in the 46 Northern
22
California Counties.” Memorandum Agreement. The Memorandum Agreement was
23
signed by Jose A. Moreno on behalf of the Northern California District Council of
24
Laborers (“District Council”) and Bruce Wibben on behalf of Laborer’s International
25
Union of North America, Local 304 (“Local 304”). Ex. 4.
26
4. The Memorandum Agreement incorporates the 2006-2010 Laborers’ Master Agreement
27
between the Association of Construction Employers and the District Council (“Master
1 Agreement”) by reference. JSUF 4; Memorandum Agreement. Specifically, the
2 Memorandum Agreement states that “the individual employer agrees to comply with all
3 wages, hours, and working conditions set forth in the Laborers’ Master Agreement for
4 Northern California by and between the Association of Construction Employers and the
5 Union June 26, 2006 through June 30, 2010 (which agreement is incorporated herein by
6 reference . . . ) . . .” Memorandum Agreement.
7 5. By executing the Memorandum Agreement, Triple S understood that it agreed to be bound
8 to all the obligations of the Master Agreement and the Trust Agreements and that pursuant
9 to said Agreements, it was required to pay hourly contributions for each hour paid for
10 and/or worked for by its employees that performed work covered under the Master
11 Agreement, including overtime pay, shift pay, and show-up time pay. JSUF 5.
12 6. Trust Fund contributions or reports that are not paid or postmarked for payment by the
25th day of the month immediately following the month for which the contributions are
13
due are deemed delinquent pursuant to the Trust Agreements. JSUF 12. Pursuant to the
14
Trust Agreements, delinquent contributions are assessed interest at a rate of one and one-
15
half percent (1.5%) per month until receipt of payment and liquidated damages are
16
assessed on delinquent contributions at a flat rate of one hundred fifty dollars ($150.00) per
17
month to reflect the internal administrative costs incurred by the Trust Funds’
18
administrator in monitoring and tracking such late contributions. JSUF 13, 14.
19
7. The Memorandum Agreement states that it remained “in full force and effect until June 30,
20
2010, and [] continue[d] thereafter for the term of any future modifications, changes,
21
amendments, supplements, extensions or renewals of or to said Master Agreement . . .
22
negotiated between the parties thereto unless either party to this Memorandum Agreement
23
[gave] written notice to the other of the desire to change or cancel not more than ninety
24
(90) days nor less than sixty (60) days prior to June 30, 2010, or June 30th of any year in
25
which the Master Agreement may terminate.” JSUF 6, Ex. 4.
26
8. Local 304 dispatches construction workers within the jurisdiction of the Master
27
Agreement. JSUF 7. In 2008, Triple S asked Local 304 to dispatch general laborers to a
1 job in Hayward, California. Local 304 dispatched Rudy Argueta and Renee Hernandez to
2 work as General Laborers (Construction Specialist Group 1) for Triple S in 2008. Triple S
3 paid contributions for Argueta and Hernandez from 2008 to September 2012. JSUF 8-10.
4 9. Triple S last paid contributions to the Trust Funds for the month of September 2012. JSUF
5 15.
6 10. On February 19, 2013 Triple S sent a letter to Fernando Estrada, Business Manager of
7 Local 304 requesting a credit the Trust Funds purportedly owed to Triple S. In the letter,
8 Triple S stated that “Local 304 has 30 days from the receipt of this letter to honor the
9 credit” and that “Triple S will terminate the agreement, if the credit isn’t honored . . .”
10 JSUF 18; Ex. 11. Local 304 forwarded the letter to the Trust Funds’ Administrator. JSUF
11 18.
12 11. February 19 is more than ninety days prior to June 30. JSUF 19.
12. On April 2, 2013, the Accounts Receivable Manager for the Trust Funds’ Administrator,
13
the Laborers Funds Administrative Office of Northern California, Inc. (“LFAO”) sent a
14
letter to Slauson in response to Triple S’s February 19, 2023 letter. The LFAO informed
15
Slauson that no credit was owed to Triple S, and that Triple S had a balance due of for
16
under-paid contributions for the months of April and November 2011. JSUF 20, Ex. H.
17
13. For the months of October 2012 through October 2013, Triple S submitted Employer
18
Reports of Contributions to the Trust Funds, reporting that no hours were worked by any
19
Laborers during the reported months. JSUF 16. The Trust Funds stopped sending
20
Monthly Contribution Reports after October 2013. JSUF 17.
21
14. On or about February 24, 2014, the Union’s business manager sent a letter to Triple S
22
stating that, according to the Union’s records, Defendant was “bound by a memorandum
23
agreement that incorporates the terms of the Laborers Master Agreement 2012-2015.” The
24
letter informed Triple S that the Laborers Master Agreement 2012-2015 provided for a
25
$1.60 hourly wage increase effective June 30, 2014, and that for contractors who signed a
26
2014-2019 Laborers Master Agreement Extension, the hourly wage increase would be only
27
$1.35. The letter invited Triple S to accept the terms of the extension by executing a new
1 Memorandum Agreement. JSUF 21. Triple S did not execute a new Memorandum
2 Agreement. JSUF 22.
3 15. On or about December 20, 2017, the Trust Funds notified Triple S that it would conduct an
4 audit to determine if Triple S had properly reported contributions to the Trust Funds for the
5 period 2014 through 2018 (the “Audit Period”). The letter requested that Triple S contact
6 the Trust Fund’s field auditor within ten working days to schedule the audit. JSUF 23,
7 Exs. 9, 13, TTII 252. This notice resulted in an exchange of communications between the
8 parties that continued through February 2018 regarding Triple S’s status as signatory to the
9 Master Agreement and Memorandum Agreement. The Trust Funds disagreed with Triple
10 S’s position that it had timely terminated the Master and/or Memorandum Agreements.
11 JSUF 24, Exs. 14, 15, 16, 17. Additional communications with Triple S’s counsel
12 continued through October 2018, after which the parties reached an agreement whereby
Triple S agreed to submit to an audit, expressly reserving the right to contest the Trust
13
Fund’s right to conduct the audit. JSUF 25, Exs. T, U, V, W, X, Y.
14
16. The Trust Funds provided a complete list of documents needed for the audit in December
15
2018, which Triple S provided. The Trust Funds’ auditors reviewed the documents at
16
Triple S’s counsel’s office in December 2018. The Trust Funds requested additional
17
documents from February 2018 to October 2019 to complete the audit. JSUF 26, Ex. AA.
18
17. The Trust Funds completed an audit covering the Audit Period. Ex. 9, TTI 117-18.
19
Argueta and Hernandez both worked for Triple S during the Audit Period. JSUF 11.
20
18. Plaintiffs filed this action on August 5, 2020. JSUF 27.
21
II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
22
Plaintiffs seek employee fringe benefit contributions and associated charges that they claim
23
are due under the 2014-2019 Master Agreement for Argueta and Hernandez’s work for Triple S
24
during the Audit Period (2014 through 2018). See Pls.’ Prop. FF/CL 14 ¶ 18 (citing Ex. 2, 2014-
25
2019 AGC/Laborers Master Agreement). Plaintiffs’ theory is that by signing the 2008
26
Memorandum Agreement, Triple S became obligated to pay contributions under the 2006-2010
27
1 Agreement. They dispute that Triple S timely or properly terminated the Memorandum
2 Agreement. See Pls.’ Prop. FF/CL 10 ¶ 4; 12 ¶ 9.
3 “ERISA requires employers to contribute to employee benefit plans in accordance with the
4 terms of collectively bargained agreements.” Trs. of Screen Actors Guild-Producers Pension &
5 Health Plans v. NYCA, Inc., 572 F.3d 771, 774 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 11452). To
6 succeed on their ERISA claim under 29 U.S.C. § 1145, Plaintiffs must show: “(1) the trust fund is
7 a multi-employer plan as defined by 29 U.S.C. § 1002(37); (2) the defendant is an employer
8 obligated to contribute under the plan’s terms; and (3) the defendant failed to contribute in
9 accordance with the plan.” Bd. of Tr. of the Sheet Metal Workers Health Care Plan of N. Cal. v.
10 Gervasio Env’t Sys., No. C03-04858-WHA, 2004 WL 1465719, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2004).
11 The first element is not at issue; rather, the parties’ dispute centers on whether Triple S was
12 obligated to pay contributions under the 2014-2019 Master Agreement and whether it failed to
13 contribute in accordance with that agreement.
14 The court concludes that Plaintiffs did not meet their burden to establish that Triple S was
15 required to pay contributions for work performed pursuant to the 2014-2019 Master Agreement.
16 Slauson executed the Memorandum Agreement on behalf of Triple S in 2008. JSUF 4. The
17 Memorandum Agreement expressly incorporates the 2006-2010 Laborers’ Master Agreement
18 between the Association of Construction Employers (“ACE”) and the District Council by
19 reference. JSUF 4; Memorandum Agreement. The excerpts of the 2006-2010 Master Agreement
20 in evidence state that the agreement was “made and entered” on June 26, 2006 and that it was
21 effective from June 26, 2006 through June 30, 2010. Ex. D.3 Defendant does not dispute that
22 “[b]y executing the Memorandum Agreement, Triple S understood that it agreed to be bound to all
23 the obligations of the [2006-2010] Master Agreement and the Trust Agreement and that pursuant
24 to said Agreements, it was required to pay hourly contributions for each hour paid for and/or
25
2 29 U.S.C. § 1145 states, “[e]very employer who is obligated to make contributions to a
26
multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained
agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance
27
with the terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement.”
1 worked for by its employees that performed work covered under the Master Agreement, including
2 overtime pay, shift pay, and show-up time pay.” JSUF 5. David Thomas, assistant to the District
3 Council’s business manager, testified that “when an employer signs a Memorandum Agreement . .
4 . [i]t binds them to the current Laborer’s Master Agreement,” and that in this case, the Master
5 Agreement in effect at the time Triple S signed the Memorandum Agreement was the 2006-2010
6 Master Agreement. TTI 58-59, 66.
7 Thomas further testified that an employer does not need to be a member of an employer’s
8 association such as ACE or Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. (“AGC”) to
9 become a signatory to a memorandum agreement negotiated between the union and the
10 employer’s association. Independent employers may also bind themselves to a master agreement.
11 Thomas explained that an employer may decide not to join such an association to avoid paying it
12 “an hourly amount for every employee they have on the job,” although they “don’t get the
13 expertise” of the association and “don’t have bargaining rights when [the union and association]
14 actually negotiate the agreement because they’re not a member [of the association].” TTI 67.
15 The Memorandum Agreement contains a provision specifying the period of time it governs
16 the parties’ relationship and obligations and states that this period is subject to renewal. The
17 Memorandum Agreement provides that “this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect until
18 June 30, 2010, and shall continue thereafter for the term of any future modifications, changes,
19 amendments, supplements, extensions or renewals of or to [the 2006-2010] Master Agreement
20 which may be negotiated between the parties thereto unless either party to this Memorandum
21 Agreement gives written notice to the other . . . ” JSUF 6, Memorandum Agreement (emphasis
22 added). Based on the plain language of this provision, the term “the parties thereto” refers to the
23 parties to the 2006-2010 Master Agreement, which were ACE and the District Council. See Ex. D
24 (Excerpts of 2006-2010 Master Agreement) at 1. In other words, the Memorandum Agreement
25 was effective from March 21, 2008, the day it was executed, until June 30, 2010, and continued
26 for the term of any extensions of the 2006-2010 Master Agreement that were negotiated by ACE
27 and the District Council.
1 2006-2010 Master Agreement, they did not present evidence that the 2014-2019 Master
2 Agreement was “negotiated between” ACE and the District Council as required by the
3 Memorandum Agreement. Instead, the 2014-2019 Master Agreement states that it is “between the
4 Associated General Contractors of California, Inc. and the Northern California District Council of
5 Laborers of the Laborers’ International Union of North America.” Ex. 2 at 1. The 2014-2019
6 Master Agreement does not identify ACE as a party.4 Therefore, the 2014-2019 Master
7 Agreement was not a “modification[ ], change[ ], amendment[ ], supplement[ ], extension[ ] or
8 renewal[ ] of or to [the 2006-2010] Master Agreement.” See Memorandum Agreement.
9 Additionally, the 2014-2019 Master Agreement states that it “modifie[s], amend[s] and
10 chang[es]” several enumerated prior agreements, but it does not list any agreement dated June 26,
11 2006, the date of the 2006-2010 Master Agreement. See Ex. 2 at 1.
12 Plaintiffs did not present evidence explaining the connection between the 2006-2010
13 Master Agreement between ACE and the District Council and the 2014-2019 Master Agreement
14 between AGC and the District Council. They also did not present evidence supporting their claim
15 that the 2014-2019 Master Agreement is a modification of or successor to the 2006-2010 Master
16 Agreement, or evidence that supports that Triple S otherwise agreed to be bound by the 2014-2019
17 Master Agreement. Accordingly, Plaintiffs did not establish that Triple S was obligated to make
18 employee contributions for work covered by the 2014-2019 Master Agreement between AGC and
19 the District Council and did not establish a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 1145.
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25
26
4 Similarly, the 2012-2015 Master Agreement states that it is between the “Associated General
27
Contractors of California, Inc.” and “the Northern California District Council of Laborers of the
Wl. CONCLUSION
In summary, Plaintiffs did not prevail on their claim for delinquent contributions under 29
2
U.S.C. § 1145. Judgment is granted to Defendant on that claim. Defendant’s request for
3
attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) is denied.
4
KES DISTR IG>
5 ay oO
IT IS SO ORDERED. = ON
6 Ay
Dated: March 25, 2024 Ey RED >
Sy ORDE
’ [Fir 1s SO
8 Da NV] Ryu
Wi □□
9 A\ \ Pees Toga \ □□□
ON fuse DSSS
©
11 Ly oS
DISTRICS
a 12
15
16
= i
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28