Opinion ID: 422023
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Classified Service

Text: 19 To be entitled to signatory service credit for 1961-1970 under the controlled company exception, Biliter must have worked in a classified job. Pension Plan p IV.C. (2). The Trustees do not deny that Biliter was employed at Low Gap as a cutting machine operator, which is a classified job. Instead, they argue that he was connected with the management of Low Gap and, on that account, did not rank as a classified employee entitled to pension credit for the period of his association with that company. Brief for Appellees at 4. As we understand the Trustees' position on brief and at oral argument, they contend that only a member of the bargaining unit can be deemed to work[ ] in a classified job for purposes of the Pension Plan and that Biliter was an owner, not a bargaining unit employee. Consequently, the Trustees urge, he is not entitled to credit for his 1961-1970 employment even if he labored as a cutting machine operator during those years. 2 Furthermore, the Trustees assert, Biliter could not have been a classified employee because classified employees are paid by the hour. Biliter, on the other hand, received a salary in the round sum of $110 every two-week pay period, not hourly wages. Brief for Appellees at 12. 20 The Trustees' argument and the words of the controlled company exception are irreconcilable. Necessarily, the exception applies to non-bargaining unit employees (i.e., persons directly connected with the ownership, operation or management of a mine); the exception has no function other than to enable covered owners, operators, or managers to earn signatory service credit for the time they worked in a classified job. If, as the Trustees contend, only a bargaining unit employee can work[ ] in a classified job, no owner, operator, or manager could meet the first requirement of the controlled company exception, and the provision would be drained of all meaning or effect. At oral argument, counsel for the Trustees said he realized the Trustees' position was rather difficult given the language of [the controlled company exception] provision; it seems self-contradictory, he ventured. Counsel suggested, however, that the exception would apply, probably, to a person who is merely a straw boss, as opposed to a person who is a manager in fact. He defined the straw boss as one who is in appearance management, but who is in fact subject to the absolute control of another company. The exception indeed may apply to a straw boss or management employee subject to the absolute control of another coal company, but the words of the provision do not so confine its operation. The Pension Plan refers to persons connected with the ownership, operation or management of a mine. It does not add the qualification, but only in appearance. Nor do we find any requirement in paragraph IV.C. (2) of the Pension Plan that the control exercised by the controlling company be absolute. 21 Further, we find scant merit in the Trustees' argument that the mere receipt of a salary, rather than wages, precludes an applicant from satisfying the worked in a classified job requirement. Biliter's salary was not significantly different in amount from pay received by other employees who were compensated by an hourly wage. He did receive his salary regularly, but he claims service credit only for time he devoted to work in a classified job, not for time when the mine was closed or when he was not employed as a cutting machine operator. 22 We conclude, in sum, that Biliter securely met the first requirement of the controlled company exception. The record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that, when he served as a cutting machine operator, he worked in a classified job.B. Control of Low Gap by Another Signatory Coal Company 23 For Biliter to meet the third requirement of the controlled company exception, the signatory coal company for which Low Gap produced coal pursuant to an agreement, and that paid royalties to the pension fund based upon Low Gap's production, also must have exercised control over Low Gap's operation during the time for which Biliter seeks credit. At oral argument, the Trustees' counsel stated that in addition to the threshold question whether Biliter worked in a classified job, 24 [t]he other element in dispute is whether the Daniel Crisp Company ... exercise control. That is not an objective fact, such as whether they paid the contributions or whether they took the production. That is something that ... remains to be determined because essentially it was concluded that Mr. Biliter was not a classified employee no matter who controlled the mine. He was a manager, and he was a supervisor. Therefore, essentially below, the question of control was not really even reached. 25 Since the Trustees have not yet addressed this requirement, and it now appears that Biliter's claim turns on the answer to the question of control, we return the case to the district court with instructions to remand the matter to the Trustees for their determination whether the Daniel Crisp Company exercised control over the Low Gap Company's mine operation. 3