Opinion ID: 328214
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Total Signatory Service Requirement

Text: 39 Section 302 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (Taft-Hartley Act) was enacted to prevent employers from attempting to dominate their employees' bargaining representatives by bribing unions or union officials. 48 Exceptions to the general prohibition against transfers of 'money or other thing[s] of value' by employers to labor organizations are contained in section 302(c). Subsection (c)(5) provides: 40 The provisions of this section shall not be applicable . . . with respect to money or other thing of value paid to a trust fund established by such representative, for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents (or of such employees, families, and dependents jointly with the employees of other employers making similar payments, and their families and dependents) . . .. 49 41 For our purposes, the crucial phrase in this subsection is the one requiring that the trust fund to which an employer contributes be 'for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of such employer, and their families and dependents . . ..' There is virtually nothing in the legislative history of Taft-Hartley to illuminate the exact purpose and meaning of this phrase. 50 In Roark II, we stated that the provision 'requires that each pensioner have some history of contributory employment.' 51 However, we failed to define specifically what minimum amount of signatory employment the provision requires. 52 None of our subsequent cases have clarified this problem, since in each case the aggrieved miner had accumulated a total amount of signatory service that would have been sufficient to qualify for a pension under even the most stringent eligibility requirement. 53 42 Since neither the relevant statute nor our cases specify what total amount of signatory service should be required, the trustees of the UMWA Welfare and Retirement Fund and of other similar funds have some discretion in setting contributory service criteria. The Trustees have exercised that discretion with respect to future applications for benefits by promulgating Resolution No. 90, which requires five years' total signatory service for miners who apply before 31 December 1976, six years for those who apply between 1 January and 31 December 1977, and so on. However, we now hold in Part III supra that Resolution No. 63, not No. 90, governs the applications filed by members of the plaintiff class. Resolution No. 63 contains a one-year total signatory service requirement in the form of a requirement that the applicant have retired immediately following one full year of work for a signatory employer. The District Court concluded that in implementing Resolution No. 63, 43 the Trustees themselves were under the apparent understanding that one year was sufficient under the Taft-Hartley Act in that the signatory last employment requirement applied to the last full year prior to retirement. The Trustees' error was not the requirement of one year's contributory employment, but the requirement that the one year of contributory service be rendered the year immediately preceding retirement. 54 44 The District Court thus thought it equitable to impose a requirement that in order to qualify for future pension benefits and retroactive relief, each member of the plaintiff class must demonstrate that he worked at least one year for a signatory employer at any time during his career. We affirm this exercise of equitable discretion by the District Court. 45 While we intimate no view on whether a one-year total signatory service requirement would be fair and equitable as a criterion of prospective application, we think such a requirement is appropriate in the peculiar circumstances of this case. We are dealing here with a limited number of retired miners who filed applications before 14 August 1970 and were denied benefits on the basis of the now extinct Resolution No. 63. Therefore, the impact of the one-year signatory service requirement approved here will be limited and entirely retrospective. Moreover, to impose a five-year signatory service requirement on the plaintiff class, as the Trustees suggest, would create the kind of inequity that Roark II sought to prevent. Hypothetically, there is a former miner, A, who retired after 1 February 1965 and applied for a pension on 1 January 1970. A had worked just one year for a signatory employer, but that year had been his last in the industry. Since A met all other eligibility requirements of Resolution No. 63, which was in effect when he applied, he was granted a pension and has been paid monthly benefits ever since. By contrast, B is a member of the plaintiff class who retired after 1 February 1965 and applied for a pension at the same time as A. B had worked for a signatory employer a total of four years and eleven months but retired from the industry while in the employ of a nonsignatory operator. Pursuant to the signatory last-year employment requirement of Resolution No. 63, the Trustees denied B's pension application. Part III of this opinion declares the signatory last-year employment requirement invalid as applied to B and others similarly situated. However, if we were now to impose a requirement of five years' total signatory employment, B, with four years and eleven months of signatory service, would be denied retroactive relief and future pension benefits while A, with just one year of such service, would continue to be paid a pension. This is precisely the kind of inequity against which Roark II was directed. 46 We affirm the District Court's decision to require at least one year of signatory service as a condition to obtaining relief.