TRUSTEES OF THE IRON WORKERS DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION FUND, IRON WORKERS LOCAL 25 PENSION FUND, IRON WORKERS HEALTH FUND OF EASTERN MICHIGAN, IRON WORKERS LOCAL 25 VACATION PAY FUND, and IRON WORKERS APPRENTICESHIP FUND OF EASTERN MICHIGAN v. NEXT CENTURY REBAR, LLC - Articles

All Content

TRUSTEES OF THE IRON WORKERS DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PENSION FUND, IRON WORKERS LOCAL 25 PENSION FUND, IRON WORKERS HEALTH FUND OF EASTERN MICHIGAN, IRON WORKERS LOCAL 25 VACATION PAY FUND, and IRON WORKERS APPRENTICESHIP FUND OF EASTERN MICHIGAN v. NEXT CENTURY REBAR, LLC

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 15, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Bryan R. Walters, VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Laura H. Lindsay, HESSIAN & MCKASY, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Neil E. Youngdahl, VARNUM LLP, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Maureen Rouse-Ayoub, VARNUM LLP, Novi, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Laura H. Lindsay, William A. Cumming, HESSIAN & MCKASY, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellees.

Judge(s): MOORE, COLE, and MATHIS, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Next Century Rebar, LLC (“NCR”) worked on a chemical project within the jurisdiction of the Local Union Number 25 (“Local 25”). Because Local 25 did not have enough iron workers to fulfill the project’s needs, NCR hired iron workers affiliated with out-of-state unions, specifically Local Union Numbers 416 and 846 (“Local 416” and “Local 846,” respectively). For the duration of the project, NCR made benefits contributions to the funds associated with the out-of-state iron workers’ unions. In 2021, funds affiliated with Local 25—Iron Workers Health Fund of Eastern Michigan, Iron Workers Local 25 Vacation Pay Fund, and Iron Workers Apprenticeship Fund of Eastern Michigan (the “Local 25 Funds”)—conducted an audit and determined that NCR had failed to make benefits contributions on behalf of the out-of-state employees to the Local 25 Funds. NCR contested this finding and refused to pay the contributions, explaining that it had made contributions on behalf of these employees to the funds affiliated with the out-of-state unions, as opposed to the Local 25 Funds. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part and REMAND this case for further proceedings.

Attachments: