Cedric Clark v. Washington Teamsters Welfare Trust

8 F.3d 1429 144 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2696 , 126 Lab.Cas. P 10,940 , 17 Employee Benefits Cas. 1843 , Pens. Plan Guide P 23893C Cedric CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WASHINGTON TEAMSTERS WELFARE TRUST, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-35054. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 31, 1993. Decided Nov. 5, 1993. Russell J. Reid and Kim Williams, Davies, Roberts, and Reid, Seattle, WA, for defendant-appellant. James K. Adams, Almon, Berg and Adams, Yakima, WA, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Before: J. WALLACE, BOOCHEVER, and NOONAN, Circuit Judges. NOONAN, Circuit Judge: 1 Cedric Clark brought suit against the Washington Teamsters Welfare Trust (the Trust) seeking to establish his right to health benefits under the Trust. The district court gave summary judgment for Clark. The Trust appealed. We reverse the district court and direct that judgment be entered for the Trust. BACKGROUND 2 Clark is the president of the Yakima County Beverage Company (the Company), which delivers beer and wine to taverns, grocery stores and cocktail lounges primarily in Yakima County, Washington. Clark…

dissenting:

I am unable to agree that Article 12 of the collective bargaining agreement reasonably can be construed as requiring 80 hours of compensation for bargaining unit work as opposed to requiring 80 hours of compensa *1433 tion only. In my opinion, the Trustees’ decision should be upheld only if it was based on Clark’s failure to perform more than de min-imis bargaining unit work.

Article 1 of the agreement between the company and Local 524 makes the union the sole and exclusive bargaining representative for all employees except “supervisors” and “owners” who are not engaged in bargaining unit work. Thus a first question before the Trustees was whether Clark was engaged in any bargaining unit work during the requisite period.

The Trustees found that Clark did at least some bargaining unit work. In an affidavit submitted to the district court, the area manager for the Trust administrator stated that the affidavits that were before the Trustees “do not show that Clark was doing more than diminimus [sic] bargaining unit work during that period.” The Trustees’ opinion of June 8, 1989, stated only that Clark “did not perform sufficient bargaining unit work (as defined in the…

Cedric Clark brought suit against the Washington Teamsters Welfare Trust (the Trust) seeking to establish his right to health benefits under the Trust. The district court gave summary judgment for Clark. The Trust appealed. We reverse the district court and direct that judgment be entered for the Trust.

BACKGROUND

Clark is the president of the Yakima County Beverage Company (the Company), which delivers beer and wine to taverns, grocery stores and cocktail lounges primarily in Yakima County, Washington. Clark started the business in 1961 and the business was incorporated in the mid-1960s. Clark and his wife are the corporate officers and the shareholders of the Company.

The Company has a collective bargaining agreement with Local 524 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Shippers, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (the Teamsters). The agreement, inter alia, provides that Local 542 is the exclusive bargaining representative for all employees of the Company except those listed in Article 1(C) of Appendix C of the agreement; the exceptions include supervisors “not engaged in bargaining unit work” and owners “not engaged in bargaining unit work.” Article 10 provides:…