Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund v. Power Packaging, Inc. , 151 F. App'x 145 ( 2005 )

Opinions of the United
2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-12-2005
Cent PA Teamsters v. Power Pkg
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 04-2867
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005
Recommended Citation
"Cent PA Teamsters v. Power Pkg" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 431.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/431
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 04-2867
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND;
JOSEPH J. SAMOLEWICZ
v.
POWER PACKAGING, INC.,
Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 03-cv-02626)
District Judge: Honorable James K. Gardner
Argued September 29, 2005
Before: RENDELL, FUENTES and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
(Filed October 12, 2005)
Andrew N. Howe [ARGUED]
Hartman, Hartman, Howe & Allerton
2901 St. Lawrence Avenue
P.O. Box 4429
Reading, PA 19606-0129
Counsel for Appellant
Frank C. Sabatino [ARGUED]
Jo Bennett
Stevens & Lee
1818 Market Street, 29 th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Counsel for Appellee
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Power Packaging, Inc. (“Power Packaging”) appeals the District Court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund (the
“Fund”) and Joseph J. Samolewicz, the Fund’s administrator. The District Court held
that the provisions of two collective bargaining agreements that concern Power
Packaging’s obligations to contribute to the Fund on behalf of its employees clearly and
unambiguously require Power Packaging to make contributions on behalf of workers that
it leases from staffing agencies. Because we disagree, and, in fact, conclude that the
pension provisions clearly and unambiguously limit Power Packaging’s contribution
obligations to employees that are on its payroll, and thereby exclude leased workers, we
will reverse and direct the District Court to enter summary judgment in favor of Power
Packaging.
The District Court had jurisdiction under sections 502 and 515 of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1145, section 301(a) of the
2
Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and the federal common law, 28
U.S.C. § 1331. In an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, we exercise jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and our review of the District Court’s order is plenary.
Teamsters Indus. Employees Welfare Fund v. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars, Inc., 989 F.2d
132, 135 (3d Cir. 1993).
As we write solely for the parties, who are familiar with the factual and procedural
background, we will discuss only the legal issue presented and related material facts.
The parties agree that Power Packaging’s pension fund contribution obligations
for the years for which the Fund seeks delinquent contributions are governed by two
collective bargaining agreements between Power Packaging and Teamsters Local Union
No. 429. Cent. Pa. Teamsters Pension Fund v. Power Packaging, Inc., No. 03-CV-
02626, slip op. at 2 (E.D. Pa. May 24, 2004). The pension fund contribution provisions
of the agreements are identical. The relevant portions of those provisions read as
follows:
Section 2. Eligibility of Employees.
a. All existing eligible Employees, and all new eligible Employees shall
be eligible for participation in and for contributions to the Fund after
they have been on the payroll of the Employer for thirteen (13) weeks.
b. In determining the initial thirteen (13) week period, a new Employee
shall be deemed to be on the payroll of the Employer each week he is
assigned and works three (3) separate work periods during one (1)
work week, or is assigned and works twenty (20) hours or more in less
than three (3) separate work periods during one (1) work week.
3
Id. at 6-7.
The District Court read Section 2.b to “render[ ] an employee who is not
technically on defendant’s payroll nonetheless eligible for pension contributions if he is
‘deemed’ to be on the payroll.” Id. at 16. Citing Schaffer v. Eagle Industries, Inc., 726 F.
Supp. 113, 117-18 (E.D. Pa. 1989), the District Court concluded that leased workers
could be considered Power Packaging employees. Id. Under the District Court’s logic,
then, the leased workers could be “deemed” to be on Power Packaging’s payroll for
pension contribution purposes. Id. at 17.
We are unpersuaded by the District Court’s analysis. A plain reading of Section
2.a reveals that Power Packaging employees are not eligible for participation in or
contributions to the Fund until after “they have been on the payroll of the Employer for
thirteen (13) weeks.” Section 2.b, on which the District Court relied, does not “deem”
otherwise non-payroll employees to be “on the payroll” and thus render them eligible for
contributions. Rather, that section provides the calculation method for the thirteen-week
period, which payroll employees must satisfy before they become eligible. Section 2.b’s
scope is expressly limited to defining the requirements for reaching Section 2.a’s thirteen-
week threshold:
In determining the initial thirteen (13) week period, a new employee shall be
deemed to be on the payroll of the Employer each week he is assigned and
works three (3) separate work periods during one (1) work week, or is assigned
and works twenty (20) hours or more in less than three (3) separate work
periods during one (1) work week.
4
Read this way, Section 2.b narrows, rather than expands, the class of Eligible Employees.
It is not enough for an employee to be “on the payroll” for thirteen weeks in order to
qualify for contributions; that employee must (1) be on the payroll and (2) satisfy Section
2.b’s minimum work period or hour requirements for thirteen weeks before Power
Packaging is obligated to contribute to the Fund on his behalf.
We conclude that the relevant language of the pension fund contribution
provisions in the collective bargaining agreements at issue is clear. Power Packaging is
required to contribute to the Fund only on behalf of those employees who satisfy all of the
requirements set forth in Sections 2.a and 2.b of those provisions. Because the leased
workers in this case are not on Power Packaging’s payroll, they fail to meet Section 2.a’s
initial payroll requirement. Power Packaging is therefore not required to contribute to the
Fund on the leased workers’ behalf.
We will accordingly reverse the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the
Fund and Samolewicz and remand the case to the District Court with instructions to grant
summary judgment in favor of Power Packaging.
5