Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/664/1344/198291/
Timestamp: 2019-12-14 07:03:16
Document Index: 135093202

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 186', '§ 302', '§ 502', '§ 1132', '§ 306', '§ 1132']

San Pedro Fishermen's Welfare Trust Fund Local 33,plaintiff-appellee, Cross-appellant, v. Carmen Di Bernardo; Frank Colonna; Carmen Di Bernardo Andfrank Colonna D/b/a the Santa Maria; James Bunn, D/b/a Thedonna B.; the Donna B. a California Corporation,defendant-appellants, Cross-appellees, 664 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1982) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1982 › San Pedro Fishermen's Welfare Trust Fund Local 33,plaintiff-appellee, Cross-appellant, v. Carmen Di...
San Pedro Fishermen's Welfare Trust Fund Local 33,plaintiff-appellee, Cross-appellant, v. Carmen Di Bernardo; Frank Colonna; Carmen Di Bernardo Andfrank Colonna D/b/a the Santa Maria; James Bunn, D/b/a Thedonna B.; the Donna B. a California Corporation,defendant-appellants, Cross-appellees, 664 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1982)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 664 F.2d 1344 (9th Cir. 1982) Argued and Submitted Oct. 8, 1981. Decided Jan. 4, 1982
Section 302(c) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186 (1976 & Supp. II 1978), permits employer contributions to welfare trust funds under rigid safeguards. Section 302(c) (5) requires that the detailed basis on which such payments are made be set forth in writing.2 It has been held (1) that oral modifications of a written welfare trust fund agreement specifying payments are invalid and contrary to public policy, Lewis v. Seanor Coal Co., 382 F.2d 437, 443-44 (3d Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 947, 88 S. Ct. 1035, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1137 (1968); and (2) that a written welfare trust fund agreement supersedes prior oral understandings as well as subsequent modifications, Boyle v. North Atlantic Coal Corp., 331 F. Supp. 1107, 1108 (W.D. Pa., 1971). The policy behind § 302(c) (5) requires that contract interpretation be confined to the written terms of the welfare trust fund agreement. See generally Thurber v. Western Confer. of Teamsters Pension Plan, 542 F.2d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 1976). Oral statements regarding the meaning of a written trust fund agreement are difficult to prove and judicial recognition of such oral statements may invite collusion and controversy to the detriment of the beneficiaries.
This action, involving a multiemployer plan, was brought under § 502(g) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (1976). At the time the action was brought the award of attorney's fees was discretionary. However the 1980 amendments to section 502(g) now make the award of attorney's fees mandatory in such cases.3 We must apply the law in effect at the time we render our decision. See Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711-716, 94 S. Ct. 2006, 2016-19, 40 L. Ed. 2d 476 (1974).4 Section 502(g) (2), as amended, is applicable and requires that attorney's fees be awarded. Central States v. Alco Express Co., 522 F. Supp. 919 (E.D. Mich. 1981). The order denying the Trust Fund's motion for attorney's fees is reversed and the case remanded for a determination of the amount of attorney's fees to be awarded.
ERISA Amendments of 1980, Pub. L. No. 96-364, § 306(b) (2), 94 Stat. 1295 (amending 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g) (1976))
This principal applies unless such application would work a manifest injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative history to the contrary. 416 U.S. at 711-721, 94 S. Ct. at 2016-21. No such special circumstances exist here