# Amicus Curiae Brief — Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0016%3A17 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1985 - **Citation:** 472 U.S. 559 ## Text WOTION FILED JUL 27 984 No. 82-2157 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1982 —— CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND and CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, Petitioners, vs CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC. et al. Respondents ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT — MOTION OF BRICKLAYERS FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS — METROPOLITAN AREA, ET AL., FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF BRICKLAYERS FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS — METROPOLITAN AREA, ET AL., AMICI CURIAE SHELDON M. MEIZLISH* 1166 First National Building Detroit, Michigan 48226 Phone: (313) 964-3430 MARSTON, SACHS, NUNN, KATES, KADUSHIN AND O'HARE, P.t (BY: ROLLAND R. OHARE) 1000 Farmer Street Detroit, Michigan 48226 Phone: (313) 965-3464 Counsel for Amici *Counsel of Record TABLE . = i Js S/ . , ; , ‘ is , ;/ . We NX — a” , > ; ei ’ ; ~ ; ¢ : ~ ; : j . ” . . VM Statutes OF Al THORITIES BEST AVAILABLE COPY © l No. 82-2157 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1982 CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND and CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, Petitioners, vs. CENTRAL TRANSPORT, INC., et al., Respondents. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT MOTION OF BRICKLAYERS FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS — METROPOLITAN AREA, ET AL., FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AMICI CURIAE The Bricklayers Fringe Benefit Funds Metropolitar Area, the Carpenters Fringe Benefit Funds Detroit and Vicinity, the Cement Masons Fringe Benefit Funds Detroit and Vicinity, the Electrical Workers Fringe Benefit Funds of Local Union #58, IBEW, and the Laborers Fringe Benefit Funds Detroit and Vicinity move to intervene ir this case as amici curiae for purposes of submitt'ng the attached brief The amici are eomposite names for trust funds? established under, and administered pursuant to, Section 302 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, as amended, 29 U.S. 186, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 91001, ef se q In this respect, the have the same legal status as petitioners. Amici operate to provide pension, medical, hospitalization, dental, holiday and vacation pay, optical and other benefits to workers in the con struction industry in southeastern Michigan. Each is a mult emplover, jointly administered employee benefit plan created by collective bargaining Amici believe that the Sixth Circuit’s opinion of January 20. 1983, was, at the vers least, overly broad and, by its sweep. will, unless corrected, do serious damage to the public polices favoring protection of emplovee henefit plat ~ and to the statu | Bricklaye Fringe Bene I I MM i \rea If Brickla rs Pens rr Fund Metr ta Area, tl B Kiaver und Trowel Trades International Px Fund, the Bricklavers Holida Trust Fund — Metropolitan Area, the Detroit and Vicinity Trowel Tra Health and Welfare | : Br ver Apprentices ‘ +? The “Carpenters Fringe Benefit Fund Detroit and \ ' he Carpenters P Trust | i Det and \ he Carpe el \ acat und Hi ia rust | ! Lye and \ 4 i ( ary ers Health and Welfare I Det i ' The “¢ Ma Fringe B fit | Detroit and \ ide the Ceme Masons Ps lr I i Det und \ t Brickla ! ind Trowe Trad I rna | P I ] { f Ma Vaca und Hi av | | ! Det i \ nd t? Detr i \ lrow Trace Health and Welfare I The “Electrical Workers Fringe Benefit | Local | mn #58 IBEW nelude the Electrical Workers Pe n Trust Fu f Loca #58. IBEW. the Electrical Workers Joint Board of Trustees Vaca I ble ul Worke irance Fund, the Suppleme , Uonemy ment Benefit Fund f the Electrical Industry, Detroit, Mic! ya Na al Fol ! il Benet | 1 and ti | Appr ra g Trust | The “Laborers Fringe Benefit | Detr , \ Laborers Pe I Detroit a ' Lat Vaca und H la i: i L i \ i La rv requirement. in furtherance of that poliev. that such plans properly funded. There are critical policv and practical cor ierations which amici beleve the Court of A} peals either failed to consider or misapprehended. In the interests of the irticipants Tor w hose sole and exe isive benefit il ( ePXNLTST i? 1 Tre nousandas oT workers and heneft CIArIes sin i? ' ’ ited 1 reques Pave ft file ting ittached bmet ae spectfu hal ttad SHELDON M. MEIZLISH* 1166 First National Build Detroit, Michigan 48226 = VARSTON, SACHS, NUNN, KATES KADUSHIN AND OHARE, P. BY: ROLLAND R. COHAREI (uw) }- armer Street Detroit, Michigan 48226 Phot 5153) 965-3464 No. 82-2157 IN THE -_ Supreme Court of the United States OCTOBER TERM, 1982 CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND and CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, Petitioners, va CENTRAL TRANSPORT, ING et al... Respondents ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF BRICKLAYERS FRINGE BENEFIT FUNDS — METROPOLITAN AREA, ET AL.., AMICI CURIAE Amici, Bricklayers Fringe B fit Funds Metroy al Area, Carpenters Fringe Benefit | is Detroit and Vi { ere Ma KY ge Benefit Fund Det: ina \ ke trica \\ kers Fy pe Benet Funds ft | i #58, IBEW, and Laborer Fringe Ben Fur Detroit and Vicinit ar’ site i s*' To? ! is r yo ind welfare benet ins ng workers ) I rt us : heastern Michigan a al resp neir ta 5. A were established under and ar dn ered pursua ™ J f the Labor-Managemet Rela Act of 1947, as amended (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. $18 ind the Emplovee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. a umended (“ERISA”), 29 U.S LOO1, ef se eng Ml R ; ge B ; Met \ y Ves j j iF : Ki in f f wii j | 7~ ' he ’ » | ; ’ ™ hi , }Y ’ ; ; " J ; aii " } : '.44 ' ’ li | bee ~ = — “—" ~/ ~ rf \i 1) bs ‘ > | ; i» 4 ‘ ’ “~ ; ’ 4 ’ ' ™ : : ‘3 : : ‘ : ~ : (cNC LE STON la NO. 81-3307 UNITED STATES COU RT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT THURMAN HUGHES, ANTHONY D. LIBERATORE MARTIN MASON, CHARLES PEARL, RICHARD STANDER. JR... PAUL SWEITZER, DREXEL J THRASH and RICHARD L. WALLER, TRUSTEES of the OHIO LABORERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL-OHIO CONTRACTORS’ ASSOCIATION INSURANCE FUND: and W. W. LATHROP. JR... JAMES BYRD, DONALD W FITTON. JR.. FORREST W. HUFF, TOM MOORE DREXEL J. THRASH, CHARLES McKEE, and JOHN CALDWELL. TRUSTEES of the LABORERS’ DISTRICT COUNCIL AND CONTRACTORS’ PENSION FUND OF OHIO and W. JOE NIEDHARDT, DREXEL J. THRASH MARSHALL L. FLYNN. JACK E. KUEBLER, AMOS JACKSON. ROBERT F. BLIEILE. GERALD JONES and WILLIAM COPELAND. TRUSTEES of the OHTO LABORERS’ TRAINING AND UPGRADING FUND Plaintiffs Appellants, BAKER CEMENT CONTRACTORS, INC Defendant -Appellee ORDER (Filed July 6, 1982 Before: ENGEL and BROWN, Circuit Judges; and GUY District Judge.” *Honorable Ralph B. Guy. Jr.. District Judg,, United States Distnet Court for the Faster 1) ried f Michigar sitting t lesignat ‘de wii This matter is before this court as a result of plaintiffs’ appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of the de fendant in the distnet court Plaintiffs are the Trustees of the Ohio Laborers’ District Couneil-Ohio Contractors’ Association Insurance Fund, the Laborers’ District Council and Contractors’ Pension Fund of Ohio. and the Ohio Laborers’ Training and Upgrading Trust Fund. These three funds are collectively bargained, multi emplover, Taft-Hartley fringe benefit funds established by agreements and declarations of trusts between the Labor Relations Division of the Ohio Contractors’ Association, the Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.. and Em plovers’ Association and the Laborers’ District Counei! of Ohio of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL CTO. an association of a local laborers’ union in Ohne. The defendant is an Olio corporation engaged in the building and construction industry within the State of Ohio On June 1. 1975. defendant became signatory to a collective hargaining agreement that had been negotiated hetween the Butler County Area Contractors’ Association of Hamilton, Ohio. an assomation of emplovers and Laborers’ Local No. 534, a local union affiliated with the Ohio Laborers’ District Council This colleetive bargaining agreement obligated the defendant fey VF nAKe coynytra i? ’ ’ certail trial finds on hehalf of ife« aborers who work within the geographical jurisdiction of Toeal 534. whether or not such laborers were in fact union members. Subsequent to entering into this collective bargaining agreement, the defendant, on Or toher 13. 1975, executed another agreement ent tied “Assent of Participation,” which agreement hound the defendant insofar as trust fund contributions were concerned to the Ohio Laborers’ District Counei! and the local minions of which it is comprised. Pursuant to these two agree ments. the defendant made monthiv fringe henefit contributions to the trust funds in question on hehalf of those members of 95, 1977 tx work force performing laborers’ work. On July i ia! requested pern oy? ‘ npavre rere ro nari real ment ar \ ernie? f) va not mpeted whet that it w d not p te PTT ray fing? thar +) il) re | A’? ‘ rye? ait : ir Wt ort rey to?! the plaintiff netituted ti bial ' Wis, 11% fort , ’ Tv sy " ’ " ’ " ; ’ ; ’ , »\* va " : " ; ; : 1 ig? 4 ‘ . v4 : ty ; wign rifteors ; ) . aT ling " ta f thy lo }? sipiotit? footer larit " : '? 1 ’> : ’ ‘? ar’ oy . , 7 " ‘ ‘ thoi os , ry . ; : 7. va " 1 4ku. ’ il | i! | eat art ie y\ 7 "7? i! ’ . | ’ *? \ raer for tr ! i} ‘ otrngr ’ nee ry otit ; lof anit : — roc by rhe PlPASS ) ear ri tev A pid) he ‘ 1, reauire mat ’ w ’ VA root rieeey in? Pe] ‘ ' »\ 7 ier) t : ; 1} " \a ; oy 4 4 . : Vi trie ince ‘ ear ls nformat that the need b\* Thal ; » “ar rt ng ‘ th, , + eter (*¢ 1¢)") ' j Tri bia ‘ ik ¢ if tery ’? ‘ : : ; ’ " : ' . }.4 ‘ ‘ : 1 my? ‘ wre : . ; } ‘ ‘ | eay : ’ ; Th | ; ty wey " : ; } ! i i i f ; -_ ' : yt : : ‘ rot? " ye j : : : 4 : : ‘ | a7 ’ ,? ’ +} : | i. ' : | —— ee ee — ta Although this appeal poses interesting questions which are being raised with increasing frequency as a result of the passage of the Employees’ Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), this court concludes that it is unnecessary to reach those questions in order to determine this appeal The decision of the trial court that the plaintiffs were entitled to the type of information that they sought in this lawsuit but eould obtain it from other sources is erroneous and not sup ported by the record The trial court recognized that plaintiffs should not be wholly dependent upon the defendant's identification of who was working as a laborer and thus entitled to fringe benefit fund contributions. The court concluded, however, that hecause there was a Union security agreement in the collective bar gaining agreement requiring all laborers to he Union members and. further, because the collective bargaining agreement provided for union stewards to be at each job site, that the Union would thus be able to definitively ascertain ....d identify those emplovees performing laborers’ work on whose behalf eontributions had to be made. This conclusion ts fatally defective for two reasons First. defendant's collective bargaining agreement with Local 534 contained a “grandfather clause” which required that only those laborers hired after the effective date of the agreement, June 1. 1975. become members of Local 534. Thus, the de fendant could have non-Union laborers on its payroll without being in violation of its agreement with Local 534 Second. although the Assent of Participation agreement signed by the defendant also obligated it to make trust fund contributions in the geographic areas covered by Locals 423, 410. and 265, the defendant was not in fact signatory to any collective bargaining agreements with these other three umions Thus. although the standard collective bargaining agreements of Locals 423, 410, and 265 contained “union security clauses,” they were not binding upon the defendant because it had no ja direct contractual relationship with these umons Thus, the defendant could perform work in the geographic areas of these unions and use non-union labor. These two examples clearly demonstrate that there were at least two groups of employees of indefinite size for whom the employer was required to make trust fund contributions but whose eligibility for same could not be determined from Union records In addition, undue emphasis is placed upon the fact that in the geographic area under the jurisdiction of Local 534 there was to be a union steward on the job. One of the significant purposes achieved by the passage of ERISA was to set up independent trust funds and trustees with fiduciary respon sibilities. This was for the purpose of protecting the employee against both management and the union. To suggest that the union steward is the ultimate safeguard as to who is doing laborers’ work overlooks the fact that Congress, by the passage of ERISA. legislatively determined that employee retirement income and fringe benefits should not be left to the protection solely of management or union, but required the protection of an independent board of trustees Since the major premises on which the trial court determined that the plaintiffs could in fact achieve access to the information they needed are incorrect, it is necessary to reverse the sum mary judgment by the district court and remand for such further proceedings as will enable the plaintiffs to secure the information necessary for them to meet their fiduciary respor sibilities under ERISA Rv wav of further guidance to the parties on remand, this court would further note that it would not appear that a veferral of this matter to arbitration is an appropriate vehicle for the resolution of this dispute at its current level. It may be that ultimately the parties will have a disagreement as to whether a given emplovee is performing laborers’ work Such a determination may or may not be properly referrable to arbitration based upon the provisions of the particular bar T« ’ ed , arnitrat " lotery rer the nature 7, " 4 ; - = 1 have ’ te that tive . s Pe »n Fund vy CRST apt irs | ty a \ hal ENTERED RY ORDER OT THE COURT IOHN P. HEHMAN { rk --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0016%3A17. Public record. Not legal advice.