Opinion ID: 495432
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Role of Arbitration Under MPPAA

Text: 25 The arbitration requirement is an important component of MPPAA's scheme to secure the financial health of multiemployer pension plans. Arbitration of withdrawal liability disputes substantially reduces the expenses incurred by multiemployer plans while it bears a burden that would otherwise fall on the federal courts. [A]rbitration promotes judicial economy and judicial restraint, both because the arbitrator's decision may dispose of the suit, and even if one party appeals the arbitrator's decision, the court will have the benefit of the arbitrator's analysis. Robbins v. Chipman Trucking, Inc., 8 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1251, 1258 (N.D.Ill.1986) (Chipman Trucking ). 13 Congress clearly designed MPPAA so that court will be the final forum for dispute resolution, and MPPAA's purposes would be undermined by the expense and delay that would be involved if litigation occurred prior to the Act's dispute resolution procedures. Accordingly, we again emphasize the importance of the legislature's decision that arbitration, and not the courts, is the proper forum for the initial resolution of disputes [under MPPAA]. Republic Indus., Inc. v. Central Pa. Teamsters Pension Fund, 693 F.2d 290, 295 (3d Cir.1982) (Republic Industries ); accord Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. MGS Transp., Inc., 661 F.Supp. 54, 56 (N.D.Ill.1987) (This congressional preference for arbitration should be respected.); Terson Co., Inc. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 565 F.Supp. 203, 208 (N.D.Ill.1982) ([T]he court must consider the fact that Congress, when it created the statutory scheme encompassing ERISA and the MPPAA, deemed arbitration as the proper forum for the adjudication of claims arising out of this scheme. We cannot blithely ignore the express intent of Congress.); cf. Refined Sugars, Inc. v. Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund, 580 F.Supp. 1457, 1461 (S.D.N.Y.1984) (MPPAA sections 1381 through 1399 cover the determinations for which Congress has provided an arbitral resolution). 26 We also note that two other circuits have recently emphasized the clarity of MPPAA's arbitration requirement. The D.C. Circuit has held that 27 initial recourse to arbitration is a statutory direction, one generally to be followed unless neither party timely presses the plea in abatement[ ] and the court finds that deferring a court contest while the parties repair to arbitration will neither lead to the application of superior expertise nor promote judicial economy. 28 Grand Union Co. v. Food Employers Labor Relations Ass'n, 808 F.2d 66, 70 (D.C.Cir.1987) (initial emphasis added) (quoting I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan C v. Stockton TRI Indus., 727 F.2d 1204, 1210 (D.C.Cir.1984)) (Grand Union ). In Marvin Hayes Lines, Inc. v. Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund, 814 F.2d 297 (6th Cir.1987), the Sixth Circuit concluded that, [u]nless an employer is mounting a facial constitutional attack or making a verifiable claim of irreparable injury, the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the merits of the dispute prior to arbitration. Id. at 300 (emphasis added).