Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TRUCKMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASS'N v. PENSION FUND

May 23, 1991

TRUCKMEN'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF ROCHESTER; BOULTER CARTING CO., INC.; GEORGE M. CLANCY CARTING CO., INC.; VOGEL VAN AND STORAGE OF ROCHESTER, INC.; SERVICE STORAGE INCORPORATED; B.G. COSTICH & SONS, INC.; EAST END MOVING AND STORAGE, INC.; GOTTRY CORPORATION; WEST PAGE 718 ROCHESTER STORAGE WAREHOUSES, INC.; AND MICHAEL CLANCY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PARTICIPANT IN, AND BENEFICIARY OF, THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND; IRVING WISCH, KEPLER VINCENT, T. EDWARD NOLAN, ROCCO F. DE PERNO, VICTOR MOUSSEAU, PAUL E. BUSH, AND JACK CANZONERI, AS TRUSTEES OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND; AND AL SGAGHONE, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, DEFENDANTS. JOHN W. MORSE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A PARTICIPANT IN, AND A BENEFICIARY OF, THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, PLAINTIFF, V. THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTER CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND; T. EDWARD NOLAN, ROCCO F. DE PERNO, CURTIS GUNDERSON, PAUL E. BUSH, AND RICHARD MULLER AS TRUSTEES OF THE NEW YORK TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND; AND AL SGAGHONE, EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NEW YORK STATE TEAMSTERS CONFERENCE PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Curtin, District Judge

Plaintiffs have moved this court to reconsider elements of its decision of November 30, 1990. In that decision, this court sustained most of the challenged provisions in the New York State Conference Pension and Retirement Fund's ("Fund") 1979 stipulation form. Truckmen's & Warehousemen's Ass'n of Rochester v. New York State Teamster's Conference Pension & Retirement Fund, 751 F. Supp. 351 (W.D. N.Y.i990). Three provisions, however, were struck down as arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 360-61. Plaintiffs argue that three issues remain before this decision can be reduced to judgment. Specifically, plaintiffs argue that:

    (1) Paragraph 2 of the 1979 stipulation is arbitrary
    and capricious to the extent it entitles the Fund to
    hold employers liable for pension benefits as
    opposed to pension contributions during a period of
    employer delinquency in paying the required
    contributions;
    (2) the Fund stipulated, and/or is required, to
    accept contributions to fund pension credits
    accruing during a dispute over a deficiency or
    delinquency in the payment of a pension
    contribution; and
    (3) the court should declare the rights of the
    parties and order affirmative relief.

The court will address each argument in turn.

DISCUSSION

I. INTERPRETATION OF PARAGRAPH 2

Plaintiffs argue that this court's November 30, 1990, decision is inconsistent in its interpretation of paragraph 2. See Truckmen's, 751 F. Supp. at 358-59, 361. Paragraph 2 provides, in relevant part, that:

    Failure on the part of the employer to contribute
  on any of his employees as specified herein, shall
  make the employer liable for all employee benefit
  claims which are incurred during the period of
  delinquency, damages, reimbursement to the Fund
  for the Fund's attorneys' fees, auditors' fees,
  court costs, disbursements and expenses incurred
  by the Fund in recovering the above.

Id. at 358 (emphasis added). The court held that this paragraph was not arbitrary and capricious because it established "an entirely permissible set of rules designed to force delinquent employers to make the contributions required of them under the applicable collective bargaining agreement." Id. at 359.

Plaintiffs argue that this holding is inconsistent with language of the decision under which the court struck down paragraph 8 as arbitrary and capricious. Again, the language of the decision is as follows:

Paragraph 8, on the other hand, is impermissible. It provides:

    The employer agrees that should he not make
    contributions on 100% of all his Bargaining Unit
    employees as required herein, the Pension and
    Retirement Fund will not pay nor be liable or
    obligated to pay any Pension and Retirement or other
    benefits to all his employees involved, whether or
    not contributions were made on such individuals, in
    which event the employer shall pay to any or all
    such employees any and all Pension and Retirement or
    other benefits. . . .
  Item 77, Ex. 3 (emphasis added). As discussed above,
  defendants have conceded their liability to employees
  for whom an employer is obligated to contribute, even
  if the employer fails to make these contributions.
  . . . Moreover, the Trustees have no authority under
  the trust indenture to hold employers liable to
  employees for unpaid pension contributions. The
  Trustees may only hold employers liable to the Fund
  for these contributions.

Truckmen's, 751 F. Supp. at 361.

The word plaintiffs latch onto in this long excerpt is the last one: "contributions." Plaintiffs argue that on the one hand the court has held, by upholding paragraph 2, that the Fund may "make the employer liable for all employee benefit claims which are incurred during the period of delinquency," id. at 358 (emphasis added); but on the other hand, by striking down paragraph 8, the court held the Fund may only hold employers liable for pension contributions.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.