ILNews

Judges affirm construction company had to pay into union funds

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with an Indiana federal court that a construction company that entered into a working agreement with a cement masons union had to contribute to two funds for all hours worked, not just bargaining unit work.

DLF Construction’s agreement with Local 692 of the Cement Masons Union bound DLF to all collective bargaining agreements between the union and various employer associations. Under the CBAs, DLF is required to make fringe benefit contributions to a pension fund and a health and welfare fund established by the union.

An audit of the funds revealed that DLF didn’t make contributions to the funds on behalf of a journeyman cement mason and member of the local union over the course of two years. DLF only contributed to the funds for cement-related work, not other work the union member performed for DLF, including painting and demolition. The audit report indicted DLF owed nearly $12,000 in fringe benefit contributions.

The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the union funds.

DLF argued that under the Memorandum of Joint Working Agreement, it’s not contractually bound to make contributions for non-bargaining unit work, but DLF has misinterpreted the working agreement. It cited Section 2 in support, but that section binds DLF to the CBAs and establishes what type of employee is covered under the CBA. That section does not limit the CBAs coverage to employees only doing bargaining unit work, the appellate court held in Mark McCleskey, trustee, et al. v. DLF Construction Inc., an Indiana corporation, 11-1826.

There is no language in either the working agreement or CBAs that limits DLF’s obligations to make fringe benefit contributions, so the District Court was correct in finding DLF must pay into the funds for each hour worked by the union journeyman.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT