76 F.4th 753
8th Cir.2023Background:
- B.F.W. Contracting, LLC and B.F.W. Contractors, LLC (Contractors) signed a short form on July 21, 2015, adopting a regional collective bargaining agreement (CBA) that ran March 1, 2014–March 1, 2019 and bound signatories to subsequent renewals absent timely notice.
- Contractors failed to give timely termination notice (Dec. 1–31, 2018) and thus remained bound by a renewed CBA effective March 1, 2019–Feb. 29, 2024; they reported no covered employees Feb–June 2019 and took inactive status July 2019.
- Boards of four employee benefit funds and two unions audited the Contractors for Jan. 1, 2017–Mar. 31, 2020 after the Contractors initially refused requested information; the district court compelled production and the auditor found 1,210.61 hours of unreported covered work.
- The Boards moved for summary judgment and sought $48,568.76 (unpaid contributions, liquidated damages, interest, audit costs, attorney’s fees, court costs); the district court entered judgment for the Boards totaling those amounts.
- On appeal, the Contractors raised multiple defenses (jurisdiction, NLRA/ERISA termination arguments, audit challenge, whether supplemental dues were owed). The Eighth Circuit reversed because a genuine issue of material fact exists whether the CBA required payment of $1,657.25 in supplemental dues — specifically, whether employee authorization cards were ever provided as the CBA requires.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to pay supplemental dues under CBA Section 5.08 | Boards: supplemental dues were unpaid and owed; audit shows dues collected/owed | Contractors: no obligation because employer must possess signed employee authorization cards before deductions and they never received them | Reversed summary judgment — genuine dispute whether authorization cards were provided; issue for trial/remand |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (ERISA) | Boards: ERISA grants federal jurisdiction and Contractors are bound by the CBA | Contractors: ERISA does not apply; not covered by the CBA | District court correctly rejected jurisdiction challenge; appellate decision did not rest on overturning that ruling |
| Validity/weight of the audit and compelled discovery | Boards: compelled production allowed completion of a reliable audit showing unpaid contributions | Contractors: audit improper and incomplete because they withheld or lacked requested documents | District court accepted audit; appellate court did not resolve audit challenge on merits because remand required due to factual dispute over supplemental dues |
| Whether Contractors effectively terminated their obligations under NLRA/ERISA (one-employee unit; unilateral termination) | Boards: Contractors failed to give required notice and remained bound by renewed CBA | Contractors: asserted unilateral termination rights under statutory provisions and one-employee unit doctrines | District court rejected termination arguments; appellate court left unresolved on remand and did not adopt Contractors’ termination theories |
Key Cases Cited
- A.I.G. Agency, Inc. v. Am. Int’l Grp., Inc., 33 F.4th 1031 (8th Cir. 2022) (summary-judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Rose-Maston v. NME Hosps., 133 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 1998) (nonmoving party must set forth specific facts to raise genuine issue)
- Liebe v. Norton, 157 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 1998) (materiality determined by substantive law)
- McClune v. Farmers Ins. Co., 12 F.4th 845 (8th Cir. 2021) (forfeiture principles for appellate review of arguments)
- Weitz Co., LLC v. Lloyd’s of London, 574 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate consideration allowed for arguments not identically pressed below where appropriate)
- Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 847 F.3d 594 (8th Cir. 2017) (limitations on presenting new arguments on appeal)