National Labor Relations Board v. Driver Salesmen, Warehousemen, Food Handlers, Clerical & Industrial Production Teamsters Union, Local No. 582

Good Law
670 F.2d 855
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 3, 1982No. 81-7259California1,912 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Goodwin, J.

Pursuant to Section 10(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 151 , et seq., the National Labor Relations Board petitions this court for enforcement of its order declaring unlawful the extension of vision care as part of the health-benefit package for members of Driver Salesmen, Warehousemen, Food Handlers, Clerical and Industrial Production Teamsters Union, Local No. 582 administered by the Inland Empire Teamsters Trust.

The Union and Associated Industries of Inland Empire, a multi-employer bargaining group, maintained a collective bargaining relationship over a number of years. Pursuant to Section 302(c)(5) of the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C. § 186 (c)(5), the Trust was created in 1966 and modified in 1976 to conform to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq.

The three charging parties, Crescent, Genuine Parts, and Columbia Lighting utilize some of the services of Associated Industries but bargain individually with the Union. These employers signed an agreement accepting the Trust and all provisions of the trust agreement. During contract negotiations with the three charging parties in 1975 and 1976, the Union proposed…

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.