NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR F UL L
- T E XT P UB L I CA T I ON Fi l e N ame: 08a0331n. 06 Fi l ed: J une 11, 2008 N o. 07- 3641 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
B O A R D S O F T R U S T E E S O F T H E O H IO L A B O R E R S ’ F R IN G E B E N E F IT P R O G R A M S , c/o M attA rch er, A d m inistrati v e M an ag er, Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l ee,
v. T I M O T H Y J E N K I N S, I ndi vi dual l ydoi ng bus i nes s as D an R ayC ons t ruct i on, I nc. al s o know n as D an R ay C ons t ruct i on; PA U L J E N K I N S, I ndi vi dual l ydoi ng bus i nes s as D an R ayC ons t ruct i on, I nc. al s o know n as Da n Ra yCo n s t ru c t i o n ; DAN R AY C O N ST R U C T I O N , I N C
. , doi ng bus i nes s as D an R ay C ons t ruct i on, D efen dan t s- A pp el l ants . O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof O hi o at C ol um bus

/ B efore: G U Y , S U H R H E IN R IC H , an d G IB B O N S , C i rcu i t Jud ges. P E R C U R I A M. T hi s i s an E R I SA cas e br ought by t he B oar ds of Trus t ees of t he O hi o L abor er s ’ F r i nge B enef i tPr ogr ams ( t he Pr ogr ams) agai ns tdefe ndant s D an- R ay C ons t ruct i on, I nc. , and i t s pr i nci pal s , as s ert i n g d e f e n d a n t s ’ fai l ur e t o m ake r equi r ed w age a nd
w el far e contr i but i ons on behal f of i t s empl oy ees i n vi ol at i on of 29 U
. S
. C
. §§ 185( c) and1132( a) ( 3)
. D efe ndant s as sert t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s entr yof s um m aryj udgm entfort heNo. 07-3641 2

P ro g ra m s w a s e rr o n e o u s b e c a u s e (1 ) t h e irre c o rd s m e t th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f 2 9 U .S .C . § 1 0 5 9 (a)(1), ( 2 ) t h ere w ere g en u ine issu es o f m aterial fa ct as t o the a cc u rac yo f th e B o ard ’s aud i tcal culat i on s, and (3) t he aw ard of att orney fees t o the P rogram s w as i m proper. B ecause t he di s t r i ctco u r tdi d noterri n fi ndi ng t hatt he def endant s w er e l i abl e fort he cont es t ed contr i but i ons , as w el l as at t or neyfee s , i t s j udgm enti s aff i r m ed. I. D an- R ayC ons t ruct i on, I nc. , i s a cons t ruct i on b u s i n e s s l ocat ed i n C l evel and, O hi o, run b y T im o th y Je n k in s an d h is fa th e r, P a u l Je n k in s. T h e O h io L a b o re rs’ F rin g e B e n e f it P r o g ra m s, re p re se n ted h e re b yth e ir B o a rd s o f T ru ste e s, c o m p rise th re e e m p lo y e e b e n e f it t rus tfunds and one l aborm anage m entcooper at i ve trus t . B yvi r tue of i t s agr eement w i t h a l ocal aff i l i at e of t he O hi o L abor er s ’ D i s t r i ct C ounci l of O hi o, D an- R ayC ons t ruct i on and/ or its p rin c ip a ls w e r e o b lig a ted u n d e r th e O h io H ig h w a y -H e a v yM u n icip a l an d U til ity C o n stru c tio n S tate A g re e m e n t ( th e C B A ) to f ile re p o rts w ith a n d m a k e f rin g e b e n e f

it contr i but i ons t o t he Pr ogr ams on beha l f of i t s empl oy ees per form ing w or k cover ed byt he CB A. T h e P ro g ra m s f

iled su it i n th e d istric t co u rt f o r th e S o u th e rn D istric t o f O h io in J anuary2005 al l egi ng defe ndant s ’ fa il u re to make r equi r ed fr i nge bene fi tcontr i but i ons of $39, 610. 89 fr om N ovember 2 0 0 2 thro ugh Sept ember2004. T he Pr ogr ams al s o s ought l i qui dat ed damages of 10% , i nt er es tof 1% perm o n th, and att or neyfee s . A l l t he
co n tr ibu ti o n s the P rog ram s all eg ed w ere d u e a n d o w ing w ere g en era te d fro m w o rkNo. 07-3641 3

p e rf o rm e d b yD a n -R a ya s a su b c o n tra c to r f o r U til ico n C o rp o ra tio n . U n d e r th e su b c o n tra c t, D an- R ay pr ovi ded U t i l i con w i t h w or ker s w ho w er e s uper vi s ed by U t i l i con for emen. D anR aycl as s i fi ed i t s empl oy ees on t he U t i l i con pr oj ect as ei t her ( 1) “l abor er s , ” i t s name fort he uni o n me mbe r s , o r ( 2 ) “ p o l i c e me n , ” i t s “ c a t c h
- a l l ” t e r m f o r wor k e r s who p e r f

o r m ed odd j obs , s uch as runner s ors ecur i t yguar ds fori t s equi pm enti n t he fi el d. I n M ay 2005 t he par t i es cons ent ed t o r efe r r al of t he cas e t o M agi s t r at e J udge N or ah M c C a n n K in g f

o r dis p o sitio n . A y e a r l a ter th e P ro g ra m s m o v e d f o r su m m a r y jud g m e n t,
w h i c h was g r a n t e d whe n t h e ma g i s t r a t e f o u n d t h a td e f

e n d a n t s ’ l a c k o f

s p e c i f i c r e c o r ds
c o n c e rn in g w o rk a lleg e d lyp e rf o rm e d o u tsid e th e s c o p e o f th e C B A su b

jec ted th e m to l i abi l i t yunder E R I SA forcont r i but i ons on al l w or k per for m ed. T he j udgm entent er ed byt he
m agis t rat e, t otal i ng $8 6, 95 6. 43 , included l i qu i dated dam ages, i nter est , and at t orneyfees. D efe ndant s t i m el yappea l ed. II. W e re v iew a d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n o n a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t de novo
. T u rn er v. C i t

y of Tayl or , 4 1 2 F .3 d 6 2 9 , 6 3 7 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is app ropri at e w hen t here are no i ssues of m at eri al fact i n di spute and t he m ov i ng p a rty is
en ti tl ed to j u d g m en t as a m att er of la w . F ED . R. C IV . P. 56( c)
. W e mustvi ew t he fa ctual
e v id e n c e a n d d ra w a ll re a s o n a b le in f e re n c e s in f

a v o r o f th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y . See M a tsu sh ita E l ec. I ndus
. C o. v. Zeni th R adi o C or p. , 4 7 5 U
. S
. 5 7 4 , 5 8 7 (19 8 6 ). A . A udi t A c c ur ac y and R e c or d K e e pi ngNo. 07-3641 4

A ltho ugh de fe nd ants r ef

er to an im pr op er c la im f or c ontr ib ut io ns onb eh al f of th e m em be r of a 1 different union , th is argum ent w as n ot made to the district court and, therefo re, has be e n waiv ed. See Thu rma n v. Yellow Freigh t Sys. , In c. , 9 7 F
. 3d 8 33 , 8 35 ( 6th C ir
. 1 99 6)
. D efen dan t s’ fi rs tt w o clai m s ar e t hat t he dis t ri ct cou rt err ed i n (1) fi nd i ng defe nd ants ’
re c o rd s to b e i n s u f

f ic ie n t u n d e r E R IS A ’s re p o rt in g re q u ir e m e n ts f o u n d a t 2 9 U .S .C . § 1059( a) ( 1) , and ( 2) ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm entfort he P rog r ams w hen a ge nui ne i s s ue of
m at eri al fact exis t ed as to t he accuracy of t heiraud i t . D efen dan t s ar gu e t hat the P rogram s’ audi tw as er r oneous , r es ul t i ng i n a dem and for “unpai d contr i but i ons foratl eas ts event een
non- uni on empl oy ees w ho per for m ed t as ks not w i t hi n t he w or k j ur i s di ct i on of t he C B A and forfr i nge benef

i t cont r i but i ons pai d t o anotheruni on. ” I n ent er i ng s um m aryj udgm entfor 1 t he Pr ogr ams, t he magi s t r at e found thatt he C B A , as w el l as es t abl i s hed pr ece dent , r equi r ed t hatfr i nge bene fi tcont r i but i ons be made i n r el at i on t o t he scope of t he w or k per for m ed by d e f e n d a nts ’ em ploy ees, regar dles s of union m em bershi p. It t hen deter m i ned t hat even if
s o m e o f th e w o rk p erf o rm ed b yn o n -un ion em p loy ee s fe ll o u tsi d e the sco p e o f w o rk
c o n t e mp l a t e d b y t h e CB A a n d wa s n o t s u b j e c t t o c o n t r i b u t i o n s u n d e rt h e l e t t e ro f t h e CB A, defe ndant s had fa i l ed t o pr ovi de s u ff ic i enti nfor m at i on t o s uppor ts uch a f i ndi ng, and t herefore al l w ork perform ed requ i red fri ng e ben efi tcon t ri bu t i on s. A s t he m agi s t r at e found, defe ndant s ’ cont ent i on t hatt he C B A r equi r es contr i but i ons onl yas t o w or k per for m ed by m ember s of t he uni on i s i ncorr ect . D efe ndant s ’ contr i but i on obl i gat i on s to the Pr ogr ams undert he C B A ext end t o any w or k wi t h i n i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . As sta ted in A rticle I of th e C B A , a n yp e rso n , firm , o r c o rp o ra tio n w h o b e c o m e s a sig n a to rytoNo. 07-3641 5

Em ploy ees are de fined in the C BAin Article I I , which states th at 2 13. Em ploy ees sh all no t includ e pro fessiona l eng ineeringperso nnel, clerical e mpl oyees , tim e- keepers, superintendents, assistant superintendents nor any sup erv isory

perso nnel, but shall in clude all othe r perso ns e m ploy ed by the Contractor in the performance of any of the v arious classes of w ork

cov ered by

this Agreem ent, comingw ithin th e jurisdiction o f the Unio n as set forth in

Exhibit A , e xceptin gwhere a C ontracto r finds th a th e n e eds an exclusiv e L aborer forem an. Ex hi b i tA li s t s 17 cat e gor i e s of work co ver e d b y th e CBA , i nc l ud i ng “ SIGNAL MEN - S igna l men in a ll c on s truc t i onwork ,” and “ FL A GPE R S ON , HAZAR D OU S WA S T E R

E MOVAL , L EAD ABATEM ENT ” (not further defined), and “ WA T C HPE R S ON
- (A) Resp onsible to patrol and m aintain a safe traffic z one includ i ng bu tn ot l i mited to barrels, con es, signs, arrowbo ards, m essag e bo ards e tc. Resp onsible to be a watch person to see th at equ ipm ent, j ob and office trailers etc. are secure. ” the a g re e m en t sha ll b e b o u n d to m ak e the co n tr ibu ti o n s set fo rt h in the C B A fo r “a ll w o rk p e rf o rm e d w ith in th e w o rk ju risd ictio n o u tli n e d in A rticle II o f th is A g re e m e n t.” (E m p h a sis
o m itt e d .) T h e C B A late r sta tes th a t “[ f ]rin g e b e n e f

it c o n trib u tio n s sh a ll b e p a id a t th e ra te sp e c if ied in E x h ib it B f

o r a ll h o u rs p a id to e a c h e m p lo y e e b yth e C o n tra c to r u n d e r th is A g re e m e n t.” (E m p h a s is o m itte d .)

2 D e f e n d a n t s ’ “ p o l i c e m e n , ” a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r o w n d e p o s i t i o n a n d a f f i d a v i tt e s t i m o n y, t ook on j obs s uch as “tr aff i c contr ol w or ker s , par t s runner s , s t r eets w eepe r s , s ecur i t yper s onal [s i c] orw at chmen w ho w at ched j obs s i t es w hen w or k w as not t aki ng pl ace [, ] and othernonl aborr el at ed j obs
. ” Such j obs cert ai nl ypl ace d t hes e w or ker s underthe jurisdi ct i on of t he C B A w h e n th e yw e re p e rf o rm in g ta s k s s u c h a s s e c u ri ty an d w a tc h in g jo b s ite s . See n. 2. T el l i ngl y , J enki ns r evea l ed i n hi s aff i davi t t hat empl oy ees i ni t i al l y cl as s i fi ed as “ pol i cemen”
w o u ld b e re c las sif

ied a s “la b o re r” a t th e p o in t th e yjo in e d th e u n io n , rath e r th a n w h e n th e ir t as ks change d. A s t he magi s t r at e found, “[t ] her e i s no d o u btt hatt he det er m i nat i veNo. 07-3641 6

As in F an ti n , th e C BAin this ca se co ntained a “union sho p clau se,” requiringthat workers be 3 membe r s of

th e un i onorj oi n the un i onwi thi n e i ghtdays o f co mme nc i ng wo rk. c h a ra c ter istic o f

a “ p o lice m a n ” e m p lo y e d b yth e b u sin e ss is th a t th e e m p lo y e e is n o t a
m e m b e r o f

th e u n io n .” T he m agi s t r at e pr oper l y found, quot i ng I r on W or ker s ’LocalN

o. 25 P ens i on Fund v. M CS G ener alC ontr act ors , I nc. , tha t “‘ d e f

e n d a n ts w e re o b li g e d to m a k e c o n trib u tio n s to funds forcover ed w or k per for m ed by[empl oy ees ] i r resp ec ti v e of thei rs t atus undert he pl an. ’ ” Ir on W

orkers , N os . 98- 2107, 99- 2262, 2000 W L 1276830 ( 6t h C i r . A ug. 30, 2000) ( unpubl i s hed di s pos i t i on)
. T hi s w as noterr or . T he P r ogr ams al s o ci t e t o T r u s t e e s o f B. A. C. LocalI ns . Fund v. Fant i n E nt er pr is es , I nc. , 1 6 3 F
. 3 d 9 6 5 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ), w h e re th e co u rt st a te d “ [ a ]s a m a tter o f law , co llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n ts m a yre q u ire e m p lo y e rs to
c o n tr ib u te to f

u n d s f o r a ll e m p lo y e e s , n o t ju s t e m p lo y e e s w h o a re m e m b e rs o f th e u n io n .” Id
. at 969. D efe ndant s w er e, acc or di ngl y , r es pons i bl e for contr i but i ons on al l w or k fal l i ng

3

w ith in the juri sd ict ion o f th e C B A , w h ethe r or n o t th o se p erf o rm ing the w o rk w ere m em b ers
o f th e u n io n w h e n th e w o rk w a s p e rf o rm e d
. See a l

so Team ster’s Local348 Heal th & W el f ar e Fund. v. Kohn B eve r age C o. , 7 4 9 F
. 2 d 3 1 5 , 3 1 8 (6th C ir
. 1 9 8 4 ). C oncerni ng t as ks al l egedl yper for m ed out s i de of t h e sco p e of t he C B A , forw hi ch d e f e n d a n ts h a v e n o c o n tra c tu a l o b lig a tio n to r em i tcon tri bu t i on s, th e m a g istra te a lso c o rre c tly d e ter m in e d th a t “[ w ]h e re a n e m p lo y e r h a s f a iled to k e e p re c o rd s s u f f icie n t to p e rm it det er m i nat i on, w i t h pr eci s i on t he amount of contr i but i ons due the bene fi tfund s, ‘ an empl oy eri s l i abl e forcont r i but i ons on al l hour s w or ked dur i ng t he per i od i n w hi ch i thasNo. 07-3641 7

been demonst r at ed t hat s om e cover ed w or k w as per for m ed. ’ ” Mi ch. L ab orers’Health C are Fund v. G r i m aldi C oncr et e, I nc. , 30 F. 3d 692, 697 ( 6t h C i r . 1994)
. D efe ndant s d o not d ispu te th is p ro p o s it ion , b u t vag u elyasse rtthat they n o ti fied the P rog ram s tha t th ere w ere
r ecor ds “ava i l abl e” s uffi ci entt o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac t about t he acc ur acyof t he audi t . D efe ndant s cr i t i ci ze t he P r ogr ams’ fai l ur e t o “[e xami ne] oreven [ r eques t ] copi es of t hos e r ecor ds , ” but do not i dent i fy a s i ngl e document i n t hei r ow n “r ecor ds ” demonstr at i ng t hats um m ary j udgm ent w as i m pr oper . T he magi s t r at e w as al s o corr ecti n det er m i ni ng t he concl us or y aff

i davi t s of T i m J enki ns and bookkeepe r K ar en A dams, as s er t i ng tha t
c o n trib u tio n s w e re n o t d u e f o r w o rk p e rf

o rm e d b yn o n -la b o re r “ p o lice m e n ,” d id n o t g e n e ra te
a q u e stio n o f

m a ter ial f

a c t. D ef en d an ts’ claim that th e m a g is tr ate e rred in f ind ing that their reco rds w ere i nsuff i ci ent unde r bot h the C B A and E R ISA ’s recor d k eeping an d report i ng requi rem ents , w h ich pro v ide th at em p loy ers a re req u ir ed to “m aintain re co rds w ith resp ec t t o ea ch o f [ their] empl oy ees su ff

ic i entt o det er m i ne the bene fi t s due orw hi ch maybecome due t o s uch empl oy ees , ” 29 U
. S. C
. § 1059( a)( 1 ), is equal l yunavai l i ng. D efe ndant s s t at e s i m pl yt hat

“ D a n -R a yp ro v id e d th e B o a rd w ith p a yro ll an d f rin g e b e n e f

it c o n trib u tio n re c o rd s th a t d e tail t he name of t he empl oy ee and t he num ber of hour s t hatempl oy ee w or ked. ” A s not ed above , defe ndant s fur t hercont end thatt heym ade c er t ai n ot her r ecor ds “ava i l abl e t o t he B oar d” for in sp e c tio n o r c o p y in g , su c h a s w e e k ly c h e c k re g iste rs f o r 20 0 2 -0 4 , u n io n w o rk d u e s m o n th ly for m s for2002- 04, i nt ernal s pr eads heet s , a l et t erand r epor tfr om t hei rbookkeepe r , and aNo. 07-3641 8

The Program s, on the o ther h and, point out that attorney fees are m andato ry

under both § 11 32(g )(2) 4 and the C BA , s tatingthat the issu e sh ould be re m anded to the district court for an award of attorney

fees in curr ed in d ef en di ngth is a

pp ea l. M ay2005 l et t erfr om t he Pr ogr ams t o D an -R ayC ons t ruct i on, al ong w i t h at t ache d do cum ents , bu tt hat the P rogram s “neve r exam i ned or eve n re q u e ste d co pies of those
r ecor ds
. ” Id
. at 15
. In f act , t hese do cum ents w ere m erel yl i st ed in a l et t er fr om defe nd ants ’
cou nsel t o co un sel for t he P rogram s, and do no tapp ear t o b e a p a rt of the recor d. T hese
rec o rds th ere fo re rem aine d ex clus ivelyin the p o sses sion o f th e d ef en d an ts. M o reo v er, defe ndant s do noti dent i fydocument s w i t hi n t hos e r ecor ds t hat ar e “s uffi ci entt o det er m i ne t he b enef

i t s due” to t heirem ploy ees. B . A t t orney F ees D efe ndant s conce de t hat t he Pr ogr ams w oul d be ent i t l ed t o a r eas onabl e att or neyfee under 2 9 U. S. C. § 1 1 3 2 ( g ) ( 2 ) i f t h e y wer e t o p r e v a i l , b u t c o n t e n d t h a t t h e a war d by t he
m agi s t r at e w as “pr emat ur e” pr i o r to the out come of t hi s appea l
. 29 U
. S. C
. § 1132( g) ( 2) 4 pr ovi des t hat , w her e “a j udgm enti n favorof t he pl an i s aw ar ded, t he courts hal l aw ar d t he pl an— . . . ( D ) r eas onabl e att or ney ’ s fee s and cos t s of t he ac t i on, t o be pai d byt he def endant . . . .” D e f

e n d a n ts p ro v id e n o a u th o ri ty f o r th e ir c o n te n tio n th a t th e a w a rd w a s “ p re m a tu re ,” and theyhave notar gued t hatt he fe e w as unr eas onabl e. T he d i stri ctcou rti s AF F I RM ED , a n d th e case i s REM AND ED fors uch fur t her p r o c e e d i n g s a s m a y b e n e c e s s a r y.