Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Combined Funds, Inc. v. Scott's Development Co.
41 A.3d 16
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Under the Pennsylvania Mechanics’ Lien Law, only a contractor or subcontractor may file a lien against an owner.
- Trustees of employee benefit funds filed mechanics’ liens for unpaid fringe benefits owed to union members under CBAs with a contractor (Pustelak).
- The Trustees themselves are not subcontractors since they did not perform work or furnish materials; unions’ members performed labor and were paid through the Trustees.
- The trial court dismissed for lack of standing, treating unions’ members as non-subcontractors and the CBAs as employment agreements, not subcontractor contracts.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court sitting en banc held that the subcontractor definition should be liberally construed and that implied in fact contracts may confer subcontractor status on unions, giving Trustees standing.
- Court also held the Trustees’ liens are not preempted by §301 LMRA and remanded for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Trustees have standing to file liens on behalf of unions? | Trustees have standing as assignees/claimants under CBAs and trust agreements. | Unions’ members are not subcontractors; Trustees lack standing. | Yes; Trustees have standing. |
| Are unions or Trustees subcontractors under the MLL? | Subcontractor definition liberally construed; unions impliedly contract to furnish labor. | Unions’ members are employees of the contractor; no subcontractor contract exists. | Unions are subcontractors under liberal construction; Trustees have lien rights. |
| Is the lien claim preempted by LMRA §301? | LMRA preemption should not defeat state mechanics’ lien rights when not requiring interpretation of the CBA. | Liens derived from CBAs may be preempted as collective-bargaining agreement claims. | Not preempted at this stage; liens do not require interpretation of the CBA. |
| Should the statute be liberally construed as to the class of lien claimants? | 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1928(c) requires liberal construction; the statute is remedial. | Strict construction governs mechanics’ lien provisions as historic class legislation. | Yes; liberal construction governs the MLL’s definition of subcontractor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. Sherman, U.S., 353 U.S. 210 (U.S. 1957) (trustees may sue under similar federal labor acts; liberal construction favored)
- Bent z v. Bentz Metal Prod. Co., 253 F.3d 283 (7th Cir. 2001) (case-by-case analysis of preemption; lien not dependent on contract interpretation)
- Wis. Cent., Ltd. v. Shannon, 539 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2008) (preemption not required when damages computation, not contract interpretation, is at issue)
- Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1994) (preemption requires interpretation of the contract; mere reference does not)
- Local 174, Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1962) (preemption for contract-based disputes in labor relations)