holding that “[i]f the employer simply points to a defect in its [the collective bargaining agreement’s] formation ... it [the employer] must still keep its promise to the pension plans.”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “[i]f the employer simply points to a defect in its [the collective bargaining agreement’s] formation ... it [the employer] must still keep its promise to the pension plans.”
- collecting the "unanimous" views of the Third, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuits and concluding that a multiemployer plan is "entitled to enforce the writing [of an employer agreement or CBA] without regard to understandings or defenses applicable to the original parties"
- rejecting as against multiemployer plan, defense that employer and union had oral understanding that employer need not make contributions on behalf of all employees covered by contribution obligation set forth in collective bargaining agreement
- observing that § 515 was designed to preclude only "complex litigation concerning claims and defenses unrelated to the employer's promise and the plans' entitlement to the contributions" (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KANNE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I am of the view that Judge Cudahy had it right in his opinion writing for the original panel, 854 F.2d 1074 (7th Cir.1988). I therefore concur with the majority en banc opinion insofar as it assesses liability against Gerber for the “Fat’s Three” and dissent as to the broader liability which may be imposed for additional Gerber employees without the opportunity for an equitable exception.