Robert Anderson, Jr. v. Alpha Portland Industries, Inc.

“Ah, replied, yeah.” cumstantial, The record shows the elements of a crime may that Santana Inocencio arrived from proven by be circumstantial as well as di- the West Coast sometime between 11:00 rect Holland, evidence. 348 U.S. at day. a.m. and 12:00 that noon 137; Hudson, S.Ct. at F.2d at Richmond, 700 F.2d at 1189. Giving the telephone In another recorded conversa- government the benefit of all inferences agent tion between an and Carlos Perez may that evidence, drawn from this shortly after Santana and Inocencio arrived believe there is substantial evidence trailer, sup- at Jesus’s Perez agent told the port jury’s verdict. the heroin had arrived and it was in the automobile Santana had driven from the Having error, found no judgment Furthermore, West Coast. Agent Kemmet the district court is affirmed. testified that Inocencio stated he and San- bringing tana had trouble the heroin into

North Dakota due to bad weather.9 argues

Santana that he was unaware Rodriguez

that Jesus and were transacting sale,

a heroin and that the reason he

went to the Grand Forks Ramada Inn that

night holidays was to celebrate the with his brothers, Jesus and alleges Andres. He ANDERSON, Jr., Robert et told something Jesus them he had al., Appellants, evening, attend to earlier in the but that he would meet them at the Ramada Inn be- INDUSTRIES, ALPHA PORTLAND p.m. tween 10:00 p.m. Although 11:00 INC., al., Appellees. et Santana and Andres arrived at the hotel p.m., around 4:00 they Santana contends No. 83-1358. early went into the hotel they because saw United States Court Appeals, parked Jesus’s car at the hotel and believed Eighth Circuit. Jesus had early. finished his business However, Santana also testified that he Sept. Submitted Rodriguez knew Carmen and Carlos Perez Decided Jan. car, had taken Jesus’s and therefore Jesus driving would be another vehicle. More-

over, when Santana and Andres saw Rodri-

guez and lounge, Perez the hotel neither approached

one them to ask whether Jesus hotel; rather,

was at the they ignored Rod-

riguez and Perez.

Finally, agents negotiating the two

Rodriguez testified that observed San- hotel, move keeping

tana about the them Rodriguez surveillance and that told

them that the individuals transported who

the heroin money would have to count the

at the hotel before the transaction could be

made final.

Although linking this evidence Santana primarily

to the heroin transaction is cir- day having 9. The record shows that the Santana and was trouble with his car due cold arrived, Moreover, temperature approxi- temperatures. Inocencio there is evidence in zero, mately thirty degrees icy. below and Santana the record that the roads in the area were GIBSON, Judge.

JOHN R. Circuit The issue before court en banc is employees Alpha whether retired Port- Industries, Inc., griev- land must exhaust procedures making ance claims for before plan provided under insurance benefits a bargaining agreements for in collective they in effect when retired. The district exhaustion, required F.Supp. court (E.D.Mo.1982), panel a but of this court 727 F.2d 177 We reversed. banc, granted rehearing en reverse and we the district court. below, appellants, plaintiffs are re- plant

tired of an cement They St. Louis. worked under collective bargaining agreements, negotiated by the Cement, Gypsum Lime United and Work- ers, provided life and health insur- and ance for active retired through to a group reference insurance program separate agree- in a embodied appellants prior ment. The had all retired when, finan- to December 1981 because of problems, Alpha cial Louis closed St. plant (Alpha cement sold its last cement longer op- September 1982 and no plants). erates local union dissolved, shortly and thereafter then terminating insur- announced it was Plaintiffs ance for retirees. benefits Hecker, Biggers, Michael George S. G. brought under this action section 301 Louis, Mo., appellees Alpha Port- St. Act, Management Labor Relations Industries, Inc. and the Ins. and land and section 502 of U.S.C. 185 Hourly Employees Plan for Health Security Act Employee Retirement Income Co.; Bryan, Cave, Alpha Portland Cement § 1132, (ERISA), right to claiming the id. McRoberts, Mo., Louis, St. McPheeters agree- benefits under the lifetime insurance of counsel. ments in effect when retired. Weinhaus, Louis, Mo., for Sheldon St. S. essentially The insurance since 1973 Weinhaus, Louis, appellants; Levin & St. “|a]ny arising provided had difference Mo., counsel. adminis- Program respecting this tration, implementa- determination and/or HEANEY, LAY, Judge, Before Chief Program subject to the tion of the shall be BRIGHT, McMILLIAN, ARNOLD, ROSS, procedure established [col- GIBSON, BOWMAN, agreement] beginning R. FAGG and JOHN lective procedure.” A sum- Judges, Step 2 of such En Banc. Circuit If, bargaining agreement. plain- apparently to this 1. The district looked court retirement, contend, upon tiffs benefits vested the contracts leaving establishing before unambiguous bind- those individuals "clear subsequently might not be bound this ing dispute method of resolution." 558 however, "clearly unambiguously” presumes Al- approach, added at 916. This grievance proce- mandating exhaustion of the underlying argument that retiree pha’s. however, Since, interpretation of the change new dure. our subject with each continued mary description plan, of the insurance the retirees’ suit was barred their fail- by Alpha employ- distributed ure to exhaust this contractual remedy. May ees retirees effective stat- approach Our governed by the appeal ed that an from denial of insur- recent Court decision in Schneid through ance could benefits be made er Moving & Storage Robbins, Co. v. grievance procedure by filing a written —, complaint personnel department. with the Schneider, In trustees of two mul grievance procedure provided as fol- tiemployer employee-benefit trust funds lows: brought an action to enforce contribution provisions and audit against partici

All certain shall at all times make pating companies. The perform an effort district court their duties in dis pending missed the suit promote manner as to exhaustion of rem opera- the efficient edies under the relevant bargain collective department tion of their and the ing agreements, Supreme but the employee griev- whole. When an ahas * * * reversed. In reaching conclusion, ance, its he shall make an effort to Supreme rejected Court first applicabil satisfactory arrive at a settlement with ity of a presumption in favor of arbitrabil so, Failing his foreman. to do he or his ity and then found that there was no ex representative may up take the matter press contractual requiring, nor Manager. with the Plant Should these any indication of intent representatives Company and the require, regard exhaustion in to trustee employee individual representative or his relating Thus, claims to the fund. proceed agree, fail to the matter shall then be ing likewise, we look first to whether there writing submitted in Manager is a presumption in favor of arbitrability as Industrial Company. Relations of the grievances of retirees and then address After full consideration and such confer- the issues of contractual interpretation.2 may mutually ences as agreed upon both upon tial arbitrator agreement be submitted to such manner as this Union of Workers, the matter shall be considered settled Company’s representatives have reached with a If an agreement. ^[*] manner, parties. both representative agreement when the ft parties. Cement, the matter The decision of an shall be final and $ shall be cannot be reached in employee’s Lime and of the International $ may by acceptable arbitration and the Gypsum binding mutual impar- ^[*] workers v. (1960). Alpha argues 363 U.S. (1960); United Steelworkers v. Warrior & tween unions terpreted ers v. requiring arbitration. light of national Gulf Navigation 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 American with a Enterprise labor Co., Court has held Manufacturing presumption employers I. (1960); 363 U.S. Wheel & Car policy, United this United Steel should be in contracts be Steelwork presump Co., that, 80 S.Ct. Corp., The district court summary judg- entered tion should extend to this case and that ment in favor of on the basis that distinguishable Schneider is in that it dealt 238, 241, most recent contract differs from that of the Ref. L.Ed.2d 462 court, unnecessary district it is for us to exam- Delaney v. Union Car- less-explicit ine also the of earlier con- (8th Cir.1984), Corp., bide 749 F.2d 17 at 19 tracts. however, distinguished being Schneider as agreement case in which "there was no clear recognize obligation 2. We to invoke disputes” the submission to arbitration of be- grievance procedures is a matter of contract. Schneider, employers. tween trustees and rath- (quoting n. 5 Rob 104 S.Ct. at 1847 Delaney, er than controls here for that reason. Storage Moving 700 F.2d bins v. Prosser's section II. infra (8th 1983)); v. Atkinson Sinclair Cir. and arbitration “outside resent retirees in trustees with retirees but with relationship.”3 cites, proceedings. The cases how dis- proceeds without Canron, Alpha, then e.g., United Steelworkers ever, language in quote cussion to cite cases Inc., Tex (3d Cir.1978); 80-81 equate retirees with as to a fashion so Mills, 129 v. tile Local Columbia Workers union.” We cannot “employees” and “the (N.D.N.Y.1978), 530-31 agree that Schneider divides the world support only proposition that a union and “non- into “trustees” plaintiffs labor standing to assert retirees’ has un presumption of arbitra- trustees” with der a collective former; bility applying to all but it chooses and that an party which it is a the retirees here issue instead is whether employer may not refuse to arbitrate similarly situated with the trus- are more obligations with the contractual union. Schneider active tees These cases do not establish that a union unions as to whom arbitration and their bargain for its retirees becomes required. generally has been their exclusive representative and that the Allied Chemical in Supreme The Court must proceed through then retirees No. 1 v. Pitts- Alkali Local & Workers contrast, the Sixth has union.4 Circuit burgh Plate 157, 172, Glass 404 U.S. (1971), may held that retirees settle a claim 30 L.Ed.2d 341 92 S.Ct. “employees” are not held that retirees against the collective meaning within the of the National Labor bargaining agreement even while the union §§ Act, (1982), 29 151-168 Relations U.S.C. Interna pending on the has suit issue. joined properly and cannot with active Union, Yard-Man, Inc., tional UAW v. bargaining in a collective unit. 1476, cert. (6th Cir.1983), 716 F.2d 1484-85 Alpha import of this case seeks to avoid denied, —, 1002, U.S. 104 S.Ct. 79 limiting obligation bargain it to to L.Ed.2d 234 retirees, arguing that once a on behalf Republic Corp. Steel v. Mad- Alpha cites chooses, permissible, as is to so union still dox, 650, 614, 379 U.S. 85 S.Ct. 13 L.Ed.2d enforcing in bargain, it then has an interest rep- argument authority supporting contract and thus the to 580 as that grounds express Alpha dis- in the contract reads back into Schneid- offers two additional for 3. First, very presumption arbitrability it tinction that merit little discussion. er the rejected. argues interpretation Supreme that Schneider involved that the Court In Schneider remedies, a trust rather than of a collective it is exhaustion of contractual not the That, however, sue, right express. E.g., bargaining agreement as here. that must be Schneider, dis- at is not an accurate characterization of this 104 S.Ct. pute. embodied in a The insurance is separate pursuant to ERISA is contract Alpha point argues duty at one that the trust, fiduciary, as a as a treated represent grievance procedures individuals in collectively bargained. Vor- even if See In re passage from and cites this from arises contract 318, pahl, Serv., Fur- 320-21 in v. U.S. Postal a footnote Bowen 459 thermore, spe- 212, Supreme 14, Schneider U.S. n. S.Ct. n. 74 596 cifically trustee-employ- (1983): stated that its rule as to L.Ed.2d 402 “When the collective-bar- disputes applies disputes raise er "even those gaining agreement provides the union with sole questions interpretation collective- under the authority press employee's grievance, an (foot- bargaining agreements." at 104 S.Ct. employee’s repre- union acts as the exclusive Second, omitted). argues that note grievance-arbitration proce- in the sentative rejection presumption in fa- opening quoted, plus Schneider's dure.” The clause earlier footnote, arbitrability to cases vor of where, does not extend make clear that this here, representative there is no contract exclusive status follows right giving plaintiffs pro- to resort di- when the contract establishes the Court, however, remedy rectly Supreme so that individual cedure as an exclusive court. directly opinion, may longer not passage workers no deal with the of its in the relevant company. argument presumes grants statu- thus This Id. ERISA mention this factor. suggest proper interpretation issue—the of the con- right 1132. To tory U.S.C. to sue. 29 waived in tract —to be determined here. legal right be deemed should that this Cf. made 104 S.Ct. at n. 22. mandatory if it is not arbitration favor of longer individuals who are members of retired no because active workers would may still bargaining bargain the collective unit be not be bound to continue to grievance pro- required rights to invoke contract give up retiree and could such disputes compa- to settle with the cedures benefits favor of more immediate Steel, however, Republic involved a ny. 181-82, interests. Id. at 92 S.Ct. at 398-99. worker who had been laid off Steel, Republic 379 U.S. at 85 S.Ct. Cf. seeking pay under the collective severance at 618.6 agreement. Alpha responds reconciling that Court, that situation was conflicting groups interests of different sufficiently grievances different from exactly province aof un- general justify exception requirement, said use of exhaustion on, among precedents, ion. It relies other “complement[ contractual remedies would Moore, 335, 349-50, ] 375 U.S. Humphrey the union’s status as exclusive 363, 371-72, (1964); representative.” Id. at 85 S.Ct. at 616 Huffman, Ford Motor Co. v. added). (emphasis The Court found that 681, 685-86, 97 L.Ed. 1048 concerning issues severance could have a (1953); and Buchholtz v. Swift significant union-company effect on future (8th Cir.1979) (Heaney F.2d negotiations relations and could “inhibit” JJ., Bright, concurring in denial of rehear- subsequent bargaining agree- on cert, denied, banc), ing en ments. Id. at 85 S.Ct. at 618. These however, Chemical, cases, Allied varying- priorities answer involve union, who, both of these contentions.5 A among despite active dif- held, Supreme Court is not the exclusive ferences, had been found to have suffi- bargaining representative for retirees even ciently similar interests to make them an when, there, the insurance benefits mod- “appropriate bargaining unit” in the con- by company originally ified had been templation of the National Labor Relations through bargaining: established contrast, Supreme Act. Court in The did not commit an unfair Allied Chemical held that retirees and ac- practice by directly contacting labor re- necessary tive lacked the “mutu- proposing changes tirees and in the health ality” “community” of interests neces- 183-88, plan. 404 U.S. at at S.Ct. 399- sary among to “assure the coherence em- ployees necessary for efficient collective prevent and at the same time a Supreme The in Court Allied Chemical union’s, functionally minority distinct group of em- also a interest in found retirement ployees being benefits, submerged.” from unlike in U.S. its interest the severance Steel, at 92 S.Ct. at 394. The cases cited provisions Republic in much more by Alpha justify do not “speculative” letting a union present employees because “functionally mediate the interests of would have no assurances that a dis- were advancing minority” part tinct which cannot be made by advancing their own interests which, pensioners’ They unit interests. would have no as the guarantee Supreme pointed out, representation of similar Court does not when have Supreme specifi- Supreme 5. The Court in Allied. Chemical 6. The Court on several occasions has who, acknowledged congressional cally distinguished individuals while not concerns with en- suring reason, managed that trust funds are presently "employees” in the inter- for some ests of beneficiaries and not directed to the active members of the work force available for purposes management. of either union or hire who had ceased work from individuals United Mine Workers Health & Retirement Funds employment. expectation with no of further Robinson, 562, 571-72, 102 S.Ct. 404 U.S. at 92 S.Ct. at 392. (1982); NLRB v. determining arbitra- whether struction Id. at a vote union affairs. 92 S.Ct. union and the agreements between tion at 395.7 disputes to between employer apply [re- Finally, Supreme Court dis- if those employers, even tirees] in Allied retiree Chemical benefits interpretation un- of questions putes raise mandatory top only permissive and not are agreements.” collective-bargaining der U.S. at bargaining, ics for Id9 concerns with inhibition at eliminates economic warfare. negotiations of and with no recourse to economic Retirees have II. hope that em

weapons other than a active behalf, ployees hope in their a will strike presumption, Unaided that was also to the trustees available contract here cannot be read as Schneider, seeking similarly who were requiring grievance proce of exhaustion protect present employ future interests Schneider, As in dures retirees. a contract to which the ees and enforce provisions only grievances relevant address party. union “employees” speak only “employ there, however, held this to be “no re initiating dispute ees” the contractual reso course.” at 1849. We must con S.Ct. procedures.10 lution For much the same similarly situ clude that retirees more reject applicability reasons as cause us to employ ated with trustees than with active presumption arbitrability, of a in favor of equally ees and are “outside the collective engage unlikely also “will infer bargaining relationship.”8 presumption A ence that arbitrability again fur [this] ] rely intended to on the policy peaceful ther the “national labor [retirees] * * * grievances. disputes resolution of indi Union” handle their labor Id. see id. rectly, presumption at at at all.” S.Ct. Furthermore, proper then likewise is “not a rule of con- 1850-51.11 the context Cir.1983), 322, 331, 333-34, Yard-Man, Inc., (6th Amax Coal 2789, 2795, 2796, denied, U.S. —, rt. ce (1984). L.Ed.2d 234 the 7. The existence of actual conflict between here, argued by par- union and the retirees the presumption may expressed 9. Such have been debating ties in whether exhaustion otherwise Anderson, panel opinion, in our earlier 727 F.2d excused, required should be is not relevant in 180; at see id. at would have but and determining pre- the context of whether the position by been the taken other consistent with sumption arbitrability applicable of is even 1, E.g., Challenger v. Local circuits. Union No. interpreting point. in the contract on that Al- Bridge, & (7th Cir.1980); Int'l Structural Ornamental Ironwork- clearly high proba- lied Chemical deals with the 645, ers, 619 F.2d Amato v. bility general making improper in it of conflict 559, Bernard, 618 F.2d All employees retirees and active ever to be for cases, however, decided of those without unit, joined bargaining in a collective without guidance opinion the of the Court’s regard more, specific circumstances. Further- compels Schneider. We believe Schneider both Alpha’s plant the demise of cement analysis and the result that we here. resulting dissolution of the unit of active em- meaning ployees cannot influence the of a con- 10. The arbitration clause in Schneider was to tract, operating, written when the business was apply between the “should differences arise as to whether retirees must exhaust contractual any employee Company and the Union or of the bargaining agree- remedies in the collective Company.” Moving See Robbins v. Prosser's ment. (8th Storage 442 n. 8 Cir. 1983), Moving sub nom. Schneider & Stor relationship employer of retiree and is “[T]he aff’d Robbins, - U.S. -, age special pe- Co. v. unadorned those considerations relationship culiar to the between an active em- ployee, employer” his union and the since dis- panel opinion In our we underscored the putes the terms and conditions will not affect of relegating inherent conflicts in retirees to an employment as to which collective is remedy by generally of arbitration controlled mandatory exclusive and since retiree claims duty repre- owes them no of fair union which will rest on vested contractual as to which strength” at see also Robbins v. of a union is not needed sentation. F.2d the "common Union, Storage Moving UAWv. F.2d for enforcement. International Prosser's grievance procedure presented grievanee procedure. “subject is The which to” lan- any Alpha-Union guage merely contract makes con instead directs all persons in the applying by plan, it to retirees even more covered the insurance struction alike, “Handling article entitled separate strained. The retirees agreement “All Complaints” begins, shall for use griev- perform procedure make an effort to their ance applicable. at all times otherwise Anderson, promote as to duties in such manner 727 F.2d at 185. As we discussed, department operation grievance procedure of their and have efficient plant employee applicable a whole. When an not as retirees. shall____” grievance, has a he initial addition, any In implication that exhaus steps grievance procedure (only mandatory tion is as to retirees is under skipped first of which is to be for insurance mined the reference in the summary claims) taking complaints all to a involve plan description filing of a written com manager, foreman or individuals not plaint as an alternate means of challenging retirees, who do not even convenient a denial of insurance benefits. ar “workplace.” have a Friedrich v. Lo Cf gues that this given can be no Elec cal No. International Union of effect because the terms of the insurance Workers, trical, Radio & Machine 515 plan controlling summary are and the de Cir.1975) (5th (machinery F.2d scription cannot add to a beneficiary’s procedure “clearly oriented ex rights. The case sup cites in employee clusively toward initiated dis port position, of this O’Brien v. complaints putes” opposed raised Univac, Sperry (D.D.C. company); Food Distribu Affiliated 1978), held that there is no federal tors v. Local No. Internation Union jurisdiction under 29 U.S.C. 1132 when Teamsters, 483 F.2d al Brotherhood of summary a claim arises under the descrip (3d Cir.1973)(collective bargaining tion rather than plan the insurance susceptible to a “fair con footnote, fact, itself.12 In a the court company-initiated struction” that it covered specifically preserved question ' grievances grievance procedure when plaintiffs whether might be entitled to company to refer its com relief some “under terms of the sum the. plaint to a union steward who would then mary plan description.” Id. at 1180 n. 1. official), present it back to a cert. event, using the summary denied, 39 description not to add to the terms insurance but to illuminate the mean only language bearing ing on the neces- the intent of the when sity present of exhaustion “subject language, this instance crafted the to” as dis but absent Schneider is the clause in the justification cussed above. We find no plan making insurance inferring griev claims thereunder that the reference to the “subject grievance to” procedure procedure the in the ance mandatory for retirees in bargaining agreement. light This of the and structure of the clause, however, itself, expressly grievance procedure does not refer see to exhaustion for retirees and need not be 104 S.Ct. at and evidence of contem expanding scope plation read as so the appeal.13 of alternate avenues of (8th Cir.1983), plan 442 sub nom. tion the Schneider that insurance alone contains the aff’d Robbins, U.S. —, Moving Storage may by Co. v. beneficiaries’ and not be altered summary description. the The disclaimer ac- companying case, however, summary description the in that rejected quite strong: "Complete 12. This has been in other cir- de- Mkt., E.g., Venoy cuits. v. Gors Palmer 578 tails of the Plan are contained in the Com- (E.D.Mich.1984). pany’s April 368 Revised Dated Retirement Plan * * governs which instrument the Plan *. Alpha foregoing also cites Van v. ex- Orman American Ins. All statements in the outline and Co., (3d Cir.1982), proposi- planations qualified by 680 F.2d 301 for the to the Plan reference required of remedies when that not member could Our conclusion of exhaustion sought). question not mandate not Finally, contract does obtain relief way is in no al- procedure grievance might mandatory be raised as to whether Indepen- Congress v. tered Bonnot require- statutory arbitration meet of F.2d 355 Local No. dent Unions fiduciary ments as opportunities re- Alpha pro- contract of denials of benefit claims. view that, step grievance last of as the vides U.S.C. 1133 procedure, dispute “may by mutual plan findWe that the insurance here agreement”' to arbitration. be submitted not, through language, either that in circum- In held certain Bonnot we presumption, require intent or exhaustion “may” that merely term allows stances the seeking retirees of contractual remedies may choose not employee pursue his disputed thus reverse benefits. We it, grievance pursue if he does he but that grant summary judgment of Id. at must seek arbitration. 359. Assum- Alpha. pursue entitled to The retirees are Alpha suscepti- contract ing that the were claims their in federal court. interpretation, resulting ble to this provision mandatory arbitration still would BRIGHT,

apply only required dissenting. to individuals who Judge, Circuit grievance procedure in the first use the Previously, panel I dissent to the filed a Here, place. we have held the lan- that opinion case, in this Anderson v. Alpha contracts guage of the does not Industries, Inc., Portland retirees even initiate that (8th Cir.1984),and I adhere to 185-187 that procedure, reach step let alone the last dissent. bearing Bonnot has little on arbitration. panel’s opinion part relied in on Rob- our issue. Moving Storage bins v. Prosser’s Congress enacting ERISA declared a (8th Cir.1983) (en banc) 700 F.2d 433 employee policy protecting benefit support its a union determination that owes participants by providing “ready access to duty of representation no fair to retirees. § 1001(b) federal courts.” 29 U.S.C. disagreed opinion I did because not (1982). Furthermore, strong there are cognizance scope of take of the limited our practical allowing reasons for retirees to Robbins, holding in recog- In Robbins. bring exhausting ERISA suits without first circumstances, nized that under certain expertise remedies. The ar- contractual might required union to arbitrate on shop, is in the “law of the not the bitrators health behalf the trustees of various and trusts, land,” i.e., law of the Alexander v. welfare stated: funds. We 36, 57, Gardner-Denver arbitration, Certainly it is true L.Ed.2d funds, pension health and welfare might result in a final deci- arbitration funds, of contract. Alexander, They are matters supra; Clayton sion. all cf. Union, UAW, either not as the exist or have International 2096-97, agreed collective-bargaining L.Ed.2d con- (1981) (exhaustion of If internal union tract related documents. contrast, qualifies plan, To find insurance even itself." Id. at 304. that the if it beneficiary rights, embodies is not a summary description only by stating all total that: integration seem as to remedies would consist- summary purpose describe of this is to [t]he purposes U.S.C. § ent with the of 29 you in nontechnical terms. It is the Plan summary requires you enough give information to intended description accurate information on the include you likely questions most of the answer remedies when insurance claims are available However, every covered if we detail have. Cong., H.R.Rep. denied. Sess., No. 93d 1st Plan, longer summary, it would no be a Cong. reprinted & in 1974 U.S.Code Ad. itself; you text as the full so if but as technical Cong., S.Rep. No. 93d 1st News Sess., you specific question should consult have a Cong. reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Ad. the Plan document. News 4847. agreements pro- before us cases trustees’ MAY, words that

vided Appellant, Richard D. could not come to court before claims interpretation had questions of contract COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL arbitration, this would be settled been REVENUE, Appellee. quite a different case. No. 84-1583. at 442.

Id. granted Court certiorari United States of Appeals, judgment Eighth of this

Robbins and affirmed Circuit. Moving Storage Co. v. court. Schneider July Submitted Robbins, U.S. —, Decided Jan. I believe the Court’s L.Ed.2d opinion preserves the limited nature of our

holding in stated: Robbins. The Court simply

There is no evidence that the Un- statutory

ion owes or contractual

duty representation of fair to the trus- evidence, In the of such

tees. absence engage unlikely inference

we will agreements in-

that the to these rely the trustees to on

tended to disputes

the Union to arbitrate their added) (foot- (Emphasis Employer. omitted). notes 104 S.Ct. at 1851. case, present I previously In the as have observed, agreements pro- the insurance by explicit language: vide for arbitration “Any arising difference under this Pro- administration, gram respecting the deter- implementation mination and/or Pro- gram subject grievance pro- shall be to the Agreement cedure established the Basic * * Thus, I think the *.” district court properly determined that the retirees had failed to exhaust their contractual reme- dies. court, subject I affirm the district retaining jurisdiction district court procedures the event arbitration cannot be closing of the carried out because cement and the dissolution of the union. local

Case Details

Case Name: Robert Anderson, Jr. v. Alpha Portland Industries, Inc.

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jan 16, 1985

Citation: 752 F.2d 1293

Docket Number: 83-1358

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.