Opinion ID: 742358
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Termination of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

Text: 4 Woodburn argues, and the district court held, that it is not liable for trust fund contributions that would have accrued after May 31, 1989 because the CBA that mandated those contributions was no longer in effect. 5 Woodburn claims that the union's March 21, 1989 letter stating that it wished to open discussion on the CBA served as notice of its desire to modify, and that in accordance with the above language, the CBA did not automatically carry over beyond March 31, 1989. 6 The terms of the CBA envision the agreement carrying over to the next year unless one party indicates its wish to terminate or modify the agreement at least sixty days before the expiration date. The union's letter indicating that it wanted to open discussions can be read as stating its intention to modify the terms of the agreement. While this letter alone leaves a question as to what the union's intentions were with regard to the then-in-force agreement, Woodburn's subsequent letter clearly indicates that it understood the agreement to be terminated. The union never disputed Woodburn's reading that the CBA had been terminated, nor did it file an unfair labor practice charge. If the union had disputed Woodburn's understanding of the CBA as terminated, the agreement would have been only voidable and its termination could not be a defense to this trust action. In this case it is apparent that both parties viewed the CBA as terminated, which is a proper defense to a trust fund's claims for delinquent payments. See Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Westlake Dev., 53 F.3d 979, 984 (9th Cir.1995) (where termination lawful, CBA is void); Carpenters Health and welfare Trust Fund v. Bla-Delco Const., Inc., 8 F.3d 1365, 1369 (9th Cir.1993) (where dispute over whether termination effective, CBA is voidable rather than void and termination not legitimate defense to a trust fund's action).