The Board of Trustees v. Slauson

Background

The plaintiffs are the Boards of Trustees for four Northern California labor trust funds: the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Laborers Pension Trust Fund, Laborers Vacation-Holiday Trust Fund, and Laborers Training and Retraining Trust Fund. They sued Steven Scott Slauson, individually and doing business as Triple S Electric Co. They alleged that Triple S breached collective bargaining agreements by failing to pay employee fringe-benefit contributions, liquidated damages, interest, and audit fees. The claims were brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, and the Labor Management Relations Act, or LMRA.

The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule without a trial when no genuine dispute of important facts exists. The court denied the motion because it found clear disputes about important facts.

Disputed facts

One dispute concerned the work performed by Rene Hernandez and Rudy Argueta, who the opinion says worked for Triple S from 2007 through 2018 and were members of Laborers Union Local No. 304. Hernandez and Argueta stated that they worked as general laborers and performed work traditionally performed by laborers. The plaintiffs therefore argued that their work was covered by the applicable Master and Trust Agreements, creating reporting and payment obligations for Triple S.

Slauson disputed that Hernandez and Argueta performed covered work during the audit period. He stated that he never requested the Union to dispatch laborers to him during the 2014–2018 audit period and that Hernandez and Argueta exclusively performed low-voltage electrician work, which he contended was not covered by the Master Agreement.

The parties also disputed whether Triple S was a signatory to, and bound by, a written collective bargaining agreement during the audit period. The 2008 Memorandum Agreement incorporated the terms of a Master Agreement covering June 26, 2006 through June 30, 2010, and provided for continuation through future renewals unless properly terminated. The plaintiffs argued that Slauson’s February 19, 2013 termination letter was ineffective because it was sent outside the contractual notice period and to Local 304 rather than the Union. Triple S argued that the notice was appropriate and timely, including because it was conditional on the plaintiffs issuing a credit and became effective after they refused to do so.

The court stated that the dispute over the letter’s effectiveness raised contract-interpretation questions. It concluded that a factual dispute remained about whether Triple S was bound by the 2012–2015 and 2018–2023 Master Agreements and therefore obligated to make contributions during the audit period.

Ruling

Judge Donna M. Ryu denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The court explained that even one genuine dispute about an important fact is enough to prevent summary judgment and found at least two such disputes, with potentially more. The court also addressed the plaintiffs’ evidentiary objections, explaining that evidence may be considered at summary judgment if its contents could be presented in an admissible form at trial.

The court ordered a further case management conference for July 20, 2022, to reset the pretrial and trial deadlines.