# Motion — Local Union 598, Plumbers & Pipefitters Industry Journeymen & Apprentices Training Fund v. J. A. Jones Construction Co.

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_3018%3A3

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Motion
- **Published:** January 1, 1988
- **Citation:** 488 U.S. 881

## Text

Supreme Court, US,
FILED
SEP 28 1988
JOSEPH E, SPAMIOL, de |
No. 88-295 CLERK

—_

In the Supreme Court

OF THE

United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1988

LOCAL UNION 598, PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS INDUSTRY
JOURNEYMEN & APPRENTICES TRAINING FUND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

VS.

J.A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; BECHTEL POWER
CORPORATION; and JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.,
Defendants-A ppellees.

BRIEF OF JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
IN RESPONSE TO
FOUNDATION FOR FAIR CONTRACTING’S
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

CARL E. HUEBER
(Counsel of Record)
JOHN C. BLACK
WINSTON & CASHATT
19th Floor
Seafirst Financial Center
Spokane, Washington 99201
Telephone: (509) 838-6131
Counsel for Johnson Control, Inc.

eal

—

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I iad cecil sk ca biwe ew owen ees ii

I ees a ete eka s been chen dae aan 2

ee ea a NaN aa ds ab akad de heh aca de 2
A. Congressional Intent As It Pertains To

ERISA ts Well Settled ... wn cece cc ees. 2

B. The State Law Directly Regulates The
Terms Of An Employee Benefit Plan ...... 3

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page
Cases:
Arcudi v. Stone & Webster Engineering, 463 U.S.
1220, 108 S. Ct SGB6 CTS scceucvcccsaaseus 3,4
Fort Halifax Packing Co. vs. Coyne, 482 U.S. __,
96 L.Ed.2d 1, @ (QR). ..<cwcuuseeeeeeeeess ae

Shaw v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 97,
77 L.Ed.2d 490, 501, 103 S. Ct. 2890 (1983) ....4,5

Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. v. lisley,
600 F.2d 323 (2rud Gl. Fe saan cccewerseaees 3,4

STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Washington Revised Code Chapter 39.12 .......... 3

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1988

LOCAL UNION 598,

PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS INDUSTRY
JOURNEYMEN & APPRENTICES TRAINING FUND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.

J.A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;
BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION AND
JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.
Defendants-Appellees.

BRIEF OF JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.,
IN RESPONSE TO FOUNDATION FOR FAIR
CONTRACTING’S AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Appellee Johnson Controls, Inc., submits this brief in
response to the Amicus Curiae Brief of the Foundation
for Fair Contracting. This brief is submitted pursuant to
Rule 33 of the Rules of the Supreme Court.

2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Johnson Controls, like Bechtel and J.A. Jones
Construction Co., is a member of the National
Constructors Association. To insure uniform obliga-
tions upon national contractors, the National
Constructors Association entered into a national
collective bargaining agreement with the United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the
Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry. The national agree-
ment requires contractors to make contributions to the
National Fund for apprenticeship training. The national
fund is an “employee welfare benefit plan” within the
definition of ERISA. In direct conflict with the
negotiated contribution requirements, Washington's
prevailing wage statute requires contributions in
excess of the national levels.

ARGUMENT

Contrary to the appellant's Jurisdictional Statement,
Congressional intent as it pertains to ERISA has been
thoroughly defined. Likewise, the issue before this
Court has also been addressed. The State’s attempt to
regulate contribution levels to an “ERISA” employee
benefit plan “relate to” the employee benefit plan.
Consequently, the issues raised by the appellant are
inconsequential and do not require plenary considera-
tion.

A. Congressional Intent As It Pertains To ERISA Is
Well Settled.

On numerous occasions, this Court has addressed
the Congressional intent behind ERISA. ERISA was
intended to preempt the field of employee benefit
plans to eliminate the threat of conflicting or
inconsistent state and local regulations. Fort Halifax

3

Packing Co. vs. Coyne, 482 U.S. __. 96 L.Ed.2d 1, 9
(1987).

Because the Congressiona| intent behind ERISA is
clear, it is unnecessary for this Court to delve any
further. State regulations which mandate specific
contributions to ERISA employee benefit plans threaten
to create inconsistent regulations. In fact, here, the
subject statute actually creates a continuing obligation
different from the obligations negotiated at a national
level. The state statute at issue in this case is the exact
type of regulation Congress intended to preempt. Since
the Court has thoroughly defined the Congressional
intent of ERISA’s preemption provision, plenary
consideration is not required.

B. The State Law Directly Regulates The Terms Of
An Employee Benefit Plan.

Here, Washington Revised Code Chapter 39.12
“relates to” an ERISA plan. The law mandates a
continuing obligation of contributions to an “ERISA”
plan in direct conflict with the employer's negotiated
obligations. Contributions are an inextricable part of a
benefit plan. Consequently, plenary consideration is
unnecessary where, as here, the State's regulation
unquestionably purports to regulate a condition of an
ERISA plan.

Here, the employers have undertaken a contractual
commitment to systematically pay contributions
includi.ig the attendant obligations which go with
those contributions. The state law directly impacts the
contractor's obligations. The case of Stone & Webster
Engineering Corp. v. Ilsley, 690 F.2d 323 (2nd Cir.
1982), affd mem. sub. nom. Arcudi v. Stone & Webster
Engineering, 463 U.S. 1220 (1983) speaks directly to
the issue at hand. Just as RCW 39.12 regulates the

4

extent of contributions, the statute in Stone & Webster
regulated the duration of contributions to an ERISA
plan. Like the statute here, the statute in Stone &

— the cost of which is to be borne by the employer
—to a private employee benefit plan.” Stone & Webster
Engineering Corp., 690 F.2d 323, 329 (2nd Cir 1982),
affd 463 U.S. 1220, 103 S. Ct. 3564 (1983).
Laws requiring specific contributions to a plan are
no different than laws requiring specific benefits from a
plan. In Fort Halifax Packing, the court stated:
.. . State laws requiring the payment of benefits
also relate to an employee benefit plan if they
attempt to dictate what benefits shall be paid under
a plan. To hold otherwise would create the prospect
that plan administration would be subject to
differing requirements regarding benefit eligibility
and benefit levels — precisely the type of conflict
that ERISA's preemption provision was intended to
prevent.

id., 96 L.Ed.2d at p. 13.

Here, contributions and benefits are inextricably

related. Without contributions, there would be no

benefits. To preempt one without the other would be

senseless.

The fact that ERISA does not speak to specific contri-
butions has no bearing on ERISA’s preemptive reach.
ERISA does not preempt only state laws dealing with

5

the subject matters covered by ERISA — reporting,
disclosure, fiduciary responsibility, and the like. Shaw
v. Delta Airlines, inc., 463 U.S. 85, 97, 77 L_Ed.2d 490,
501, 103 S. Ct. 2890 (1983). The preemptive reach of
ERISA was meant to clear away all state laws bearing
on benefit plans even though many aspects of benefit
plans remain unregulated by ERISA. id.

In summary, state laws regulating continued
contributions to a benefit plan have a direct and
continuing impact on the contractors obligations vis-a-
vis that plan. This Court has thoroughly defined
Congressional intent to preempt such state laws which
purport to regulate a substantive requirement of the
plan. Consequently, the issues raised by the present
appeal are so insubstantial that the Court is requested
to dismiss the present appeal or alternatively affirm the
lower court's ruling.

DATES this 20th day of September, 1988.

Respectfully submitted,

i.

LE HU
(Counsel of Record)
JOHN C. BLACK
WINSTON & CASHATT

Attorneys for Johnson Controls,
Inc.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385019_3018%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.