Dunlop

Dunlop v. Tremayne

Good Law
1965 Cal. LEXIS 260·42 Cal. Rptr. 438·62 Cal. 2d 427·398 P.2d 774·17 A.L.R. 3d 368
Supreme Court of CaliforniaFebruary 11, 1965L.A. No. 28186California1,724 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Mosk, J.

This is a monothetie case which poses the question whether payments made by an employer, pursuant *428 to an industrywide collective bargaining agreement, into independent trust funds for medical, welfare, and retirement benefits constitute “wages” as that word is used in section 1204 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1

Cal-Paeific Downey, the employer, entered into collective bargaining contracts with unions representing its employees, as part of an industrywide collective bargaining agreement in the lumber industry in Southern California. The agreements obligated the employers to make monthly payments into two trust funds, one for retirement benefits and the other for health and welfare benefits. Bach employer paid a flat sum for each employee who worked for him for more than 80 hours each month. Employees are entitled to benefits only as long as they are employed by one of the parties to the agreements. Employee health and welfare benefits are determined by the terms of a group policy carried by the trust, and retirement benefits are calculated on the basis of an individual’s total period of employment in the industry. No relationship exists between amounts contributed by…

dissent Opinion

McComb, J.

I dissent. I would reverse the judgment for the reasons expressed by Mr. Justice Kingsley in the opinion prepared by him for the District Court of Appeal in Dunlop v. Tremayne (Cal.App.) 40 Cal.Rptr. 550 .

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.