Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc.

104 F.3d 253, 96 Daily Journal DAR 15561, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9459, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33640, 1996 WL 737422
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedDecember 27, 1996
DocketNos. 95-35117, 95-35132
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 104 F.3d 253 (Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc.) 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
Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Albertson's, Inc., 104 F.3d 253, 96 Daily Journal DAR 15561, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9459, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33640, 1996 WL 737422 (9th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

OPINION

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

Northwest Administrators, Inc. (the “administrator”) filed this action to recover pension contributions from Albertson’s, Inc. (“Albertsons”) pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Albert-sons and International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “union”). The district court held that Albertsons was required to make pension contributions for overtime pay but not for stop pay for long haul mileage truck drivers.1

The district court also awarded the administrator liquidated damages and attorney’s fees under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2) for its overtime claim. However, the district court denied the administrator’s request for liquidated damages and attorney’s fees on delinquent contributions, discovered during the litigation, which were owed to long haul mileage drivers and voluntarily paid by Albert-sons. Both sides cross-appeal the district court’s orders on summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

I. FACTS

Albertsons and the union are parties to a CBA covering warehouse and driver employees for Albertsons’ Portland Distribution Center. The CBA requires Albertsons to make pension contributions for its employees to the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Fund (the “trust”), a multi-employer pension benefit plan established pursuant to ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(2).

The administrator filed this action to recover delinquent pension contributions discovered through an audit covering the period [255]*255from December 1990 through May 1992. The administrator sought pension contributions on: (1) hours 9 and 10 for warehouse employees regularly working 10-hour shifts, four days a week; (2) overtime for all employees working up to the monthly maximum of 173 hours per month; and (3) stop pay for long haul mileage drivers. In response to the administrator’s action, Albertsons agreed to pay the pension contributions for the warehouse employees that worked four 10-hour days. However, Albertsons contested whether it owed pension contributions for overtime for all employees and stop pay for long haul mileage drivers.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the administrator on the overtime claim. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Albertsons on the stop pay claim. The district court also awarded the administrator liquidated damages and attorneys fees for prevailing on the overtime and the four 10-hour-day claims.

During the litigation, and after the district court’s decision on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the administrator discovered through an audit that Albertsons’ pension contributions for long haul mileage drivers were deficient by $8,039.51. Although Albertsons promptly paid the deficiency, the administrator requested liquidated damages and attorneys fees on this item. The district court denied the administrator’s request.

Albertsons appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the administrator on the overtime claim. The administrator appeals the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Albertsons on the stop pay claim, and the denial of the administrator’s request for liquidated damages and attorney’s fees for the delinquent contributions discovered during litigation.

II. ANALYSIS

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Jesinger v. Nevada Fed. Credit Union, 24 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir.1994). We must determine, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether any genuine issues of material fact exist. Bagdadi v. Nazar, 84 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.1996).

A. Overtime

We affirm the district court’s ruling that under the CBA Albertsons was required to make pension contributions for overtime pay up to a maximum of 173 hours.

Article 13.1 of the CBA provides:

Effective October 1, 1988 the employer shall pay into the Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust on account of each member of the bargaining unit for each compensable hour the following amounts which are to be computed monthly:
(a) Twenty-eight cents ($0.28) per compen-sable hour per employee who works less than 8 hours in a day.
(b) Two dollars and twenty-four cents ($2.24) per day per employee who works 8 hours in a day, but not a full week or a full month.
(c) Eleven dollars and twenty cents ($11.20) per employee who works a full week or more, but less than a full month.
(d) Forty eight dollars and forty-four cents ($48.44) per month per employee who works a full calendar month.

CBA Article 13.1 (emphasis added).

Under a plain reading of Article 13.1, Al-bertsons is required to make pension contributions for each “compensable hour.” Article 13.1 makes no distinction between “straight-time” or overtime; nor does it exclude overtime.2 In these circumstances, we agree with the district court that “[t]he parties’ use of the term ‘compensable hour’ is broad enough to include all forms of paid [256]*256hourly compensation including straight-time, overtime, paid vacation and paid sick leave.”

However, Albertsons contends that the parties intended to exclude overtime for the sole purpose of calculating pension contributions under Article 13.1. Albertsons claims that the bargaining history indicates that the parties intended to exclude overtime as “compensable hours” for calculating pension contributions.

During the 1988 contract negotiations, the union proposed the following provision which Albertsons rejected:

10.2 If an employee works or is compensated for less than a full month’s pay and his accumulation of hours, both straight-time and overtime hours exceeds 173 hours in that calendar month, the Employer shall make the appropriate monthly contributions.

As noted by the district court, Albertsons’ rejection of this provision only shows that Albertsons wanted to maintain the monthly cap of a “full calendar month” for calculating pension contributions.3 The record contains no evidence that Albertsons rejected the proposed provision because it included overtime in the calculation of hours accumulated. Rather, the evidence shows that the negotiations focused on the pension contribution rates under Article 13.1 because the rates were far below prevailing industry levels.

Had Albertsons wanted to limit its pension contributions only to “straight-time” it could have explicitly excluded overtime from the ambit of “compensable hour” or used the term “straight-time” instead of “compensa-ble hour” under Article 13.1.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 F.3d 253, 96 Daily Journal DAR 15561, 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9459, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 33640, 1996 WL 737422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/northwest-administrators-inc-v-albertsons-inc-ca9-1996.