Burke v. Lenihan

Ninth Circuit

Burke v. Lenihan

606 F.2d 840, 104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2485, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12771

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 1979

DocketNos. 76-3125, 76-3214

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 606 F.2d 840 (Burke v. Lenihan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burke v. Lenihan, 606 F.2d 840, 104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2485, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12771 (9th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

TRASK, Judge.

This case presents the same legal problem that was considered by a different panel of this court in the case of Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline Co., 601 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1979). In Waggoner the question on appeal was “whether the agreement requires contributions for all hours worked by employees who perform any covered work or only for the hours actually worked in covered employment.” Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline Co. (At 457). We held there that the collective bargaining agreement required contributions for all hours worked by or paid to employees who perform any work covered by the Master Labor Agreement.

As appears in Waggoner, the ambiguity, if one indeed existed, was resolved by a reference of the problem to the Labor Management Adjustment Board, a group created expressly for the purpose of settling disputes over the interpretation of the Master Labor Agreement. It seems clear that the interpretation of the contract with which we deal here was also settled by the Labor Management Adjustment Board.

In the present case, Burke v. Lenihan, the trustees of several Operating Engineers Trust Funds sued an employer for allegedly breaching a provision of the collective bargaining agreement. One of the employer’s workers served as an operating engineer part of the time, and as a laborer the rest of the time. The trustees argued that the agreement required the employer to make contributions to the trust fund based on the total number of hours the employee was paid for, regardless of the type of work he performed. The employer took the position that he was obliged to contribute only for the time the employee actually spent performing operating engineer tasks. The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. Because we find that the decision in Waggoner, supra, is controlling here, the judgment is

REVERSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TRASK, Judge.

This case presents the same legal problem that was considered by a different panel of this court in the case of Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline Co., 601 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1979). In Waggoner the question on appeal was “whether the agreement requires contributions for all hours worked by employees who perform any covered work or only for the hours actually worked in covered employment.” Waggoner v. C & D Pipeline Co. (At 457). We held there that the collective bargaining agreement required contributions for all hours worked by or paid to employees who perform any work covered by the Master Labor Agreement.

As appears in Waggoner, the ambiguity, if one indeed existed, was resolved by a reference of the problem to the Labor Management Adjustment Board, a group created expressly for the purpose of settling disputes over the interpretation of the Master Labor Agreement. It seems clear that the interpretation of the contract with which we deal here was also settled by the Labor Management Adjustment Board.

In the present case, Burke v. Lenihan, the trustees of several Operating Engineers Trust Funds sued an employer for allegedly breaching a provision of the collective bargaining agreement. One of the employer’s workers served as an operating engineer part of the time, and as a laborer the rest of the time. The trustees argued that the agreement required the employer to make contributions to the trust fund based on the total number of hours the employee was paid for, regardless of the type of work he performed. The employer took the position that he was obliged to contribute only for the time the employee actually spent performing operating engineer tasks. The district judge granted summary judgment in favor of the employer. Because we find that the decision in Waggoner, supra, is controlling here, the judgment is

REVERSED.

C. William Burke, John L. Connolly, Howard C. Dennis, Alexander Rados, William Schmidt, Jerald B. Laird, John C. Maxwell, Joseph H. Seymour, Richard L. Corbit, Harold Edwards, Donald E. Mier, William C. Waggoner, Richard Cannon and Alan Roberts, Each in His Respective Capacity as Trustee of the Operating Engineers Health & Welfare Fund, John L. Connolly, C. v. Holder, Howard C. Dennis, John C. Maxwell, James J. Kirst, C. William Burke, Kenneth J. Bourguignon, Joseph H. Seymour, Richard L. Corbit, Harold Edwards, Donald E. Mier, William C. Waggoner, Richard Cannon and Jerry Trent, Each in His Respective Capacity as Trustee of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust, Howard C. Dennis, C. William Burke, Alexander Rados, C. I. T. Johnson, James J. Kirst, Jerald B. Laird, Joseph H. Seymour, Richard L. Corbit, Harold Edwards, Donald E. Mier, William C. Waggoner and Richard Cannon, Each in His Respective Capacity as Trustee of the Operating Engineers Vacation-Holiday Savings Trust, Alexander Rados, William Schmidt, Howard C. Dennis, Robert R. Moodie, C. I. T. Johnson, Charles J. Rounds, Jr., Joseph H. Seymour, Richard L. Corbit, Donald E. Mier, Jerry Trent, Alan Roberts and Harold Edwards, Each in His Respective Capacity as Trustee of the Operating Engineers Journeyman and Apprentice Training Trust v. James E. Lenihan, an Individual, James E. Lenihan, an Individual, Defendant-Cross-Appellant v. C. William Burke, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees

606 F.2d 840 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

606 F.2d 840, 104 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2485, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burke-v-lenihan-ca9-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack