Opinion ID: 2969330
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: employer contributions

Text: As in Independent Fruit and unlike Hartlage Truck Service, Inc., the CBAs involved in the present case do not define The contracts at issue here did not define the term “casual “casual.” Furthermore, Central States had no notice of the driver.” Therefore, this court must decide what test should be unusual meaning Brown-Graves attached to the term “casual applied to determine whether an employee is within the casual 4 Brown-Graves Co. v. No. 99-3039 No. 99-3039 Brown-Graves Co. v. 5 Central States, et al. Central States, et al. classification. Section 515 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1145, While Central States noted that the post-1986 CBAs governs employer contributions to multi-employer pension excluded “casual employees” from participation, Central plans: States accepted the CBAs because there was no indication in the CBAs that the employer had assigned a Every employer who is obligated to make contributions meaning to the term “casual employee” other than the to a multi-employer pension plan under the terms of the standard definition of short term, temporary, sporadic plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained employees which would not violate Central States’ rules. agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance with the terms The Sixth Circuit has not addressed the issue of whether, in and conditions of such plan or such agreements. the absence of a definition in the contract, the ordinary dictionary definition or some other definition should apply to Thus, employers are required to make contributions according determine whether or not an employee is “casual.” The to the terms of their contracts. Central States, Southeast and Seventh and Eighth Circuits have addressed the issue. The Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Hartlage Truck Service, Eighth Circuit has concluded that an employer could not Inc. 991 F.2d 1357, 1360 (7th Cir. 1993). avoid contributions to the pension fund for “casual” employees by making an agreement with the union to attach The CBA covering 1983-1986 made no mention of “casual a different meaning from its plain meaning. See Central drivers.” It provided that all new employees “shall be States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. considered as probationary employees for a period of ninety Independent Fruit & Produce Co., 919 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. (90) calendar days” and that new drivers were not to become 1990). The Seventh Circuit reached the opposite conclusion. eligible under the plan for thirty days. Brown-Graves claims It held that an employer is required to make contributions to it had an informal agreement with Local 348 pertaining to pension plans only on behalf of those employees as indicated casuals. Nevertheless, the 1983-1986 CBA was unambiguous in the CBAs, and if casual employees are excluded from and must be interpreted without any regard to parol evidence. benefits in the CBA, then any employee so designated is The subsequent CBAs did contain “casual driver” language, excluded from benefit contributions. See Central States, but did not define the term. Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Hartlage Truck Service, Inc., 991 F.2d 1357, 1360 (7th Cir. 1993). Since June 23, 1986, Brown-Graves classified each new driver as a “casual driver.” The language in the post-1986 In Independent Fruit, the employers had negotiated a CBA CBAs excluding casual drivers from pension benefits was which provided that casuals would not be eligible for pension unambiguous. However, it did not provide notice to Central contributions, but it did not define casuals. Central States States that Brown-Graves gave the term “casual employee” an conducted an audit and determined the employer owed unusual meaning which allowed it to call all new employees contributions for several employees because the number of “casual” for indefinite periods of time. Central States would hours they worked indicated that they were not casual not have accepted Brown-Graves’s post-1986 CBAs had it employees. The Eighth Circuit held that the CBAs involved known that Brown-Graves planned to call every newly hired were not ambiguous and there was nothing in the CBAs employee a “casual” for periods up to four years so it could suggesting anything other than the ordinary dictionary avoid pension payments. The district court stated that: definition of casual was intended. Independent Fruit, 919 F.2d at 1352. The court stated that: