Opinion ID: 702356
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arbitration Requirement

Text: 7 Central States argues that the declaratory judgment action was improperly before the district court because the MPPAA requires that: Any dispute between an employer and the plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan concerning a determination made under sections 1381 through 1399 of this title shall be resolved through arbitration. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)(1). 8 Several of our sister circuits have stated that the determination of whether an entity ever became an employer under the MPPAA is an issue properly addressed by a district court prior to arbitration of any remaining issues: 9 [There is] a third narrow exception to the arbitration requirement. This exception allows a company to bypass arbitration for the limited purpose of determining whether it is an employer within the meaning of section 1401(a)(1). This conclusion follows from the language of that section, which states that arbitration shall govern disputes between an employer and the plan sponsor. Since only an employer is required to arbitrate, the district court may address this threshold question before arbitration. 10 Mason & Dixon Tank Lines, Inc. v. Central States Pension Fund, 852 F.2d 156, 167 (6th Cir.1988) (collecting cases); see also Teamsters Joint Council No. 83 v. CenTra, Inc., 947 F.2d 115, 122 (4th Cir.1991); Banner Indus. v. Central States Pension Fund, 875 F.2d 1285, 1293 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1003, 110 S.Ct. 563, 107 L.Ed.2d 558 (1989); Board of Trustees of Trucking Employees of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.--Pension Fund v. Centra, 983 F.2d 495, 501 (3d Cir.1992). 3 11 The sole question presented to the district court by Rheem's action for declaratory judgment was whether Rheem was an employer under the MPPAA. 4 We agree with the reasoning of the Sixth Circuit, quoted above. Section 1401 applies to disputes between employers and plan sponsors; since the district court was deciding whether Rheem was, or ever had been, an employer, Sec. 1401 does not apply to Rheem's action for declaratory judgment. We therefore find that the district court did not err in denying Central States' motion to dismiss.