Document: 466 U.S. 364 104 S.Ct. 1844 80 L.Ed.2d 366 SCHNEIDER MOVING & STORAGE COMPANY, Petitioner,v.Loran W. ROBBINS et al. PROSSER'S AND Petitioner, v. Loran Nos. 82-1860, 82-1862. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Feb. 21, 1984. Decided April 18, Syllabus Petitioner employers entered into collective-bargaining agreements with a union that required them to participate in two multiemployer employee-benefit trust funds. The petitioners contribute funds according applicable terms their agreements. were incorporated by reference and authorized respondent trustees initiate "any legal proceedings [that they] discretion deem best interest Fund effectuate collection or preservation contributions." Respondents filed complaints Federal District Court, claiming failed meet contribution requirements, requesting court order an accounting immediate payment all sums thereby determined be due. Petitioners defended on ground raised disputed interpretations under first must submitted arbitration. bargaining arbitration "differences arise between Company Union any employee as meaning application provisions this agreement," no parties other than employer given access process. dismissed suits pending Appeals reversed remanded, holding relevant indicated intent require contractual disputes thus failure arbitrate could not bar respondents' suits. Held: may seek judicial enforcement against without submitting underlying dispute over term Pp. 1848-1851. (a) presumption promisor assert third-party beneficiary defense he promisee if suing contract, should applied so inflexibly defeat intention parties. Whether applies case respondents, beneficiaries agreements, depends at issue. 1848-1849. (b) arbitrability is determining whether agreed employers, even those raise questions interpretation P. 1849. (c) Neither nor issue here evidence part condition right respondents exhaustion procedures contained petitioners' 1849-1852. 700 F.2d 433 (8th Cir.1983), affirmed remanded. David F. Yates, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner No. 82-1860. Charles Bobinette, Russell N. Luplow, Bloomfield Hills, Mich., both cases. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 presented these cases participating employer's agreement. 2 * are funds, Central States, Southeast Southwest Areas Pension Health Welfare (Trust Funds).1 Prosser's Moving Storage Co. (Prosser's) Schneider (Schneider)—who have separate Eastern Missouri, had requirements refused allow audit payroll records. requested They alleged federal subject-matter jurisdiction § 301(a) Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. 185(a), 502 Employee Retirement Income Security (ERISA), 1132.2 procedures.3 It held although prerequisite "simple matters" which liability agreement clear, claims such where 3 A three-judge panel Eighth Circuit was suit Robbins Storage, 80-2116, 80-2117 (CA8, Mar. 24, 1982) (per curiam). An en banc panel. After examining competing considerations labor laws governing court, therefore, decision remanded further proceedings. (1983). We granted certiorari view apparent conflict among Circuits issue.4 464 813, 66, 78 81 now affirm. II 4 As resolved Appeals, present narrow question contract interpretation. considered only intended before exercise sue court.5 Because its resolution issue, did reach argument requiring submit prohibited matter law. If we agree provide arrangement, also need address argument. turn first, analysis 5 Local 610 International Brotherhood Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen Helpers America (Union). These reference.6 agreements7 agreements.8 To ensure compliance gave authority examine records.9 complying they enforce requirements: 6 "The Trustees . shall power demand collect contributions Employers Fund. [The] Board take steps, including institution prosecution of, intervention in, owed Trust Fund, prejudice, however, rights whatever steps deemed necessary purpose." Agreement, Art. III, Sec. 4, App. 22. 7 substantially identical. Both weekly payments "each regular Employee." No employees who worked "either temporarily emergency."10 Each clause [the collective-bargaining] agreement." Id., 55. Arbitration demanded either agreement, alone Schneider's III A. 8 argue bound clauses provided therein same extent would it seeking rely general rule contract. See Restatement (Second) Contracts 309, Comment b (1981); S. Williston, 395 (3d ed. 1959); Corbin, 819 (1951). That rule, merely construction useful intent. Where language circumstances executed, establish affected defenses might promisee, inapplicable.11 (1981). §§ 818, Thus, trustees' set forth B 9 Before attempting ascertain parties' from determine favor Steelworkers Trilogy12 here. accepted applicability employer. Such furthers national policy peaceful accords presumed objectives pursuing collective bargaining. Warrior Gulf Navigation Co., 363 574, 578, 582-583, S.Ct., 1350, 1352-1353 (1960). There is, less commend construing 10 promotes peace because requires forgo economic weapons strikes lockouts. recourse weapons, promote indirectly, all.13 conclude, proper apply agreements.14 C 11 Without arbitrability, employers. contain requirement, surrounding execution each suggest none inferred. discuss turn. 12 Under broad contributions."15 Nowhere expressly conditioned remedies found individual Nor successfully identified supports nevertheless condition. This surprising. funds.16 unions has prompt Any diminution fund caused particular adverse effect participants.17 mechanisms established protect interests delinquency allowing requirements. unreasonable infer subordinate agreement.18 In absence contrary, will 13 Even assume negate powers conferred broader group find attempt do suggestion 55 (emphasis added). Although concede neither requirement. see justification doing so. concede, permit invoke expensive,19 there reason assume, more persuasive here, incur expenses request requirement reimbursement. likely complete reliance Union.20 disagreed refuse claim, compromise position outcome subsequent proceeding predetermined arbitration.21 particularly implausible duty fair representation implied, compel pursue uncompromised through simply owes statutory trustees.22 evidence, engage unlikely inference employer.23 inference, basis assuming IV 14 hold We, affirm judgment remand 15 ordered. pursuant 302(c)(5) Act, 186(c)(5). governed 1001 seq., Multiemployer Plan Amendments 1980 (MPPAA), 1145. Section LMRA provides forum contracts, pension welfare ERISA various duties imposed Cf. Republic Steel Corp. Maddox, 379 650, 85 614, 580 (1965) (exhaustion grievance procedure generally predicate 301 LMRA). Petitioners' responses differed some minor respects. primary Prosser limited scope asserted conduct company's audit, but claimed covered Relevant fact arbitrable reviewed prior See, e.g., Howard Martin, Inc., 625 171 (CA7 1980) (arbitration involving review); National Benefit Hospital Care Employees Constant Community Center, 669 213 (CA4 (same). expressed outset follows: "Our conclusion embodied [LMRA], [ERISA], [MPPAA], together accompanying instruments, dictate procedure, initiate." 435. explanation holding, court's concluding statements, make clear consulted "national policy" held: "[A]rbitration, health matters exist related documents. us express words come been settled arbitration, quite different case. But not." 442. XV, (Health Welfare); XVI, (Pension) Collective-Bargaining 76. inform Agreement identical pertinent Only included joint appendix. References, made Article 1, part: "Each Employer continuing parties." 21. 5, may, representatives, records Employer's place business whenever examination advisable connection administration Trust." 23. Collective Bargaining Secs. (Pension). 77-79. Lewis Benedict Coal Corp., 361 459, 489, 442 (1960), example, rejected BRENNAN writing majority employ urged "[was] typical contract," counseled inference. 468-469, 494-495. adopt approach decline mechanical petitioners. American Manufacturing 564, 1343, 1403 (1960); 1347, 1409 Enterprise Wheel Car 593, 1358, 1424 NLRB Amax 453 322, 337, 101 2789, 2798, 69 672 (1981), recognized "disputes benefit cannot, can bargaining, lead strikes, lockouts, exercises power." think observation disposal, serve little purpose course, circumstances, serves fully probable 22 16 largest Taft-Hartley States. roughly 500,000 participants nationwide. Brief 6, 18. 17 U.S., 469, 495 ("[U]nlike usual industry-wide many promisors. suggested [presumption] [employers] willing risk threat number become involved local difficulties"). 18 general, seem support precisely opposite conclusion, suggesting conflicts latter. [of agreements] adopted good faith binding upon Union, Employers." IV, 17, 26-27. hand, ratified "all actions already taken [the] within authority." 3, 19 V, bear one-half costs 57. cost least one why declined represented absolute grievances Vaca Sipes, 386 171, 191-192, 87 903, 917-918, 842 (1967). settle "prior most costly time-consuming step procedures." 191, 917. 20 Indeed, prohibit arrangement. II, 10, "[n]o representative act agent Trustees." 21 597, 596-599, 1361-1362 ("It arbitrator's bargained for; far concerns courts overruling him his"). Barrentine Arkansas-Best Freight System, 450 728, 737, 1437, 1443, 67 641 union's traditionally runs members unit, coextensive exclusive unit. supra, 182, 912; Humphrey Moore, 375 335, 342, 84 363, 368, 370 (1964). Moreover, pointed suggests impose Union. accord wide protection beneficiaries. objective "to maximize overall compensation members." Barrentine, 742, 1446. sacrifice elements package "if alternative expenditure resources result increased benefits workers unit whole." Ibid. 23 indication arrangement petitioners, occasion legality.

Category: 6