The Mason and Dixon Tank Lines, Inc. v. Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund

852 F.2d 156 (6th Cir. 1988) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 15, 1988 · No. Nos. 86-5221, 86-6249 and 86-6289

Summary

The Sixth Circuit held that disputes concerning withdrawal liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act must initially be submitted to arbitration, including disputes involving statutory interpretation. The court reversed the district court's decision that reduced Mason and Dixon Tank Lines' withdrawal liability and remanded for arbitration. The opinion also discusses the narrow exception for injunctive relief based on a verifiable claim of irreparable injury.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Boggs, Circuit Judge; Wellford, Circuit Judge; Nelson, Circuit Judge
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
July 15, 1988
Docket number
Nos. 86-5221, 86-6249 and 86-6289
Procedural posture
The pension fund appealed and Tank Lines cross-appealed from a district court decision addressing withdrawal liability under ERISA and the MPPAA and reducing Tank Lines's liability to twenty-five percent of its net worth. The Sixth Circuit held that the remaining disputes had to be submitted initially to arbitration.
Standard of review
The court reviewed whether the district court properly entertained the merits of the MPPAA withdrawal-liability dispute before arbitration; the opinion does not expressly state a separate standard of review.
Precedential value
published binding Sixth Circuit opinion
Parties
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund, Counter-Plaintiffs-Appellants, Cross-Appellees v. The Mason and Dixon Tank Lines, Inc., Counter-Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

employee benefitsemployment arbitrationstatutory interpretationappellate procedurecommercial litigation

Practice areas

employee benefitsemployment lawemployment arbitrationcommercial litigation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether disputes concerning the computation and amount of MPPAA withdrawal liability must initially be submitted to arbitration even when they involve statutory-interpretation questions.
  2. Whether the district court could decide Tank Lines's defenses concerning cure of the withdrawal, controlled-group contribution histories, constitutionality of the MPPAA as applied, and equitable reduction of liability before arbitration.
  3. Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred reconsideration of the arbitration requirement based on the prior injunction concerning the Transport group's employer status.
  4. Whether the threshold question of whether a party is an employer subject to the MPPAA may be resolved by a court before arbitration.

Holdings

  1. The MPPAA requires disputes between an employer and a multiemployer plan sponsor concerning determinations under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1381 through 1399 to be submitted initially to arbitration, including disputes involving only questions of statutory construction.
  2. Tank Lines's remaining issues—including whether it could cure the withdrawal, whether the fund could aggregate controlled-group contribution histories, whether the MPPAA was unconstitutional as applied, and whether equity warranted reducing liability—had to be submitted initially to arbitration.
  3. A court may decide the threshold question whether a party is an employer subject to the MPPAA before compelling arbitration, because only an employer is required to arbitrate under § 1401(a)(1).

Key quotations

Any dispute between an employer and the plan sponsor of a multiemployer plan concerning a determination made under sections 1381 through 1399 of this title shall be resolved through arbitration. (852 F.2d at 161)
We also agree with a growing number of circuits that questions of statutory construction, standing alone, are not exempt from arbitration under the MPPAA. (852 F.2d at 162)
We conclude that the issues remaining before the district court must initially be submitted to arbitration under section 1401(a)(1) of the MPPAA. (852 F.2d at 163)

Factual background

Tank Lines operated trucking terminals covered by collective-bargaining agreements requiring contributions to the Central States multiemployer pension fund. After five employees at one terminal decertified their union, the agreement expired and Tank Lines's contribution obligation for that unit ceased while Tank Lines continued performing covered work, creating a partial withdrawal under the MPPAA. The fund treated Tank Lines and its parent, Mason and Dixon, as businesses under common control and assessed withdrawal liability using the contribution histories of the controlled group, producing an assessment of approximately $17 million after the Transport group was excluded.

Procedural history

The district court initially enjoined collection of interim withdrawal-liability payments and arbitration, then granted summary judgment to the Transport group on whether it was an employer under the common-control provision. That ruling was affirmed in an unpublished prior appeal, after which the district court addressed Tank Lines's remaining defenses and reduced its withdrawal liability on equitable grounds. On the present appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed and directed that the remaining disputes proceed to arbitration.

Remand instructions

The district court's October 29, 1986 decision was reversed, and the dispute between Central States and Tank Lines was to be submitted initially to arbitration under 29 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1). The court expressed no opinion on Tank Lines's obligation to make interim withdrawal-liability payments.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…