Source: http://openjurist.org/670/f2d/855/81/7259
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 02:46:54
Document Index: 679443212

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 186', '§ 1001', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 186', '§ 1001', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 158']

670 F2d 855 National Labor Relations Board v. Driver Salesmen Warehousemen Food Handlers Clerical & Industrial Production Teamsters Union Local No | OpenJurist
670 F. 2d 855 - National Labor Relations Board v. Driver Salesmen Warehousemen Food Handlers Clerical & Industrial Production Teamsters Union Local No	Home670 f2d 855 national labor relations board v. driver salesmen warehousemen food handlers clerical & industrial production teamsters union local no
670 F2d 855 National Labor Relations Board v. Driver Salesmen Warehousemen Food Handlers Clerical & Industrial Production Teamsters Union Local No 670 F.2d 855
93 Lab.Cas. P 13,370
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner,v.DRIVER SALESMEN, WAREHOUSEMEN, FOOD HANDLERS, CLERICAL &INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION TEAMSTERS UNION, LOCAL NO.582, Affiliated with the InternationalBrotherhood of Teamsters, etal., Respondents.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 8, 1981.Decided March 3, 1982.
The Union and Associated Industries of Inland Empire, a multi-employer bargaining group, maintained a collective bargaining relationship over a number of years. Pursuant to Section 302(c)(5) of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5), the Trust was created in 1966 and modified in 1976 to conform to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.
The three employers then filed charges alleging that the implementation of vision care benefits violated Sections 8(b)(3) and 8(d) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b)(3) and (d).
On January 31, 1979, an administrative law judge found (1) that the Trust was an agent of the Union because Union trustees caused the Trust to establish vision care benefits and (2) that the establishment of vision care benefits constituted a unilateral contract modification in violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(3). The administrative law judge ordered the Union and the Trust to rescind the benefits.
In order to establish a violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, the Board had to establish that the Trust was an agent of the Union. The Board argument is that the Union trustees "caused" the Trust to implement vision care benefits and therefore the Union trustees "intended to promote union, not trust, goals." In addition, once the trustees passed the plan, the Union advertised the new benefits and helped to implement the plan "by maintaining a file of all employees participating therein and assisting employees in completing their claim forms ... and by establishing a clinic in its offices for vision care services."
The Trust was established pursuant to Section 302 of the Taft-Hartley Act (Taft-Hartley Trust), 29 U.S.C. § 186 and ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq. which requires trustees to be independent of either the union or the employer. National Labor Relations Board v. Amax Coal Co., --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 2789, 69 L.Ed.2d 672 (1981); NLRB v. United Broth. of Carpenters & Joiners, supra, 531 F.2d at 427. Several provisions of the Trust Agreement are designed to guarantee this independence and designed to conform to Section 302 and ERISA.
B. Section 8(b)(3), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(3).
In the absence of a finding that the Trust was an agent of the Union when the trustees voted to establish vision care benefits, there could be no violation of Section 8(b)(3) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(3), at least not on the theory used to strike down the plan.
Section 8(b)(3) provides:
The administrative law judge and the Board found that the Union and the Trust violated Section 8(b)(3) of the Act by "unilaterally changing the Employers' employee benefit plans to include vision care." However, the Trust acted independently of the Union in implementing the vision care benefits. The Union trustees made the proposal, but this fact is not dispositive. The vision care proposal could not have passed without the majority vote of Union and employer trustees. When the charging parties accepted the Trust, they agreed to be bound by decisions made by the Trust. The challenged decision was made by the Trust.
Under Section 302 of Taft-Hartley and Section 404 of ERISA, trustees are fiduciaries "whose duty to the trust beneficiaries must overcome any loyalty to the interest of the party that appointed him." N.L.R.B. v. Amax Coal Co., --- U.S. ----, ----, 101 S.Ct. 2789, 2796-2798, 69 L.Ed.2d 672 (1981). As a result, the Supreme Court stated that management-appointed trustees could not be representatives for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 8(b)(1)(B) of the Act, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(B).
Because we hold that there was no Section 8(b)(3) violation, the Board's order cannot be enforced.
Home670 f2d 855 national labor relations board v. driver salesmen warehousemen food handlers clerical & industrial production teamsters union local no