Nw. Administrators, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Nw. Administrators, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
29 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Metcalf v. Blue Cross Blue Shield (ord, 2014-11-05) · Strongest negative: Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio, Etc. v. Us West Direct (ca10, 1988-06-07)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 22 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited "but see" Communication Workers of America, Afl-Cio, Etc. v. Us West Direct
10th Cir. · 1988 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Northwest Adm'r Inc. v. Con Iverson, 749 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.1984); Local Union 204 of Int'l Bhd. of Elec.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Metcalf v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
D. Or. · 2014 · confidence medium
Adm’rs, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1339 (9th Cir.1984)), leaving open the possibility that Dr. Misic could have brought suit in his own right. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pens. Plan Guide P 23914k Erskine Yarde v. Pan American Life Insurance Company Georgetown Industries, Inc. Georgetown Steel Corporation, Erskine Yarde v. Pan American Life Insurance Company Georgetown Industries, Inc. Georgetown Steel Corporation (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
4th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
ILGWU Health & Welfare Fund v. Teamsters Local Union No. 229 Welfare Fund, 764 F.2d 147, 152-53 (3rd Cir.1985) (noting earlier precedent that "implicitly adopted the view that Sec. 1132 must be read narrowly and literally" and refusing to add "medical plans" to the limited statutory list of entities entitled to sue under ERISA); Pressroom Unions-Printers League Income Security Fund v. Continental Assurance Co., 700 F.2d 889, 892 (2nd Cir.) (surveying both the language of ERISA and its legislative history and concluding that neither source indicated a congressional intent to open the courts to …
cited Cited as authority (rule) U.A. Local No. 343 of the United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 1992 · confidence medium
Haley & Haley, Inc. v. NLRB, 880 F.2d 1147, 1149-50 (9th Cir.1989); Northwest Admrs., Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Upholsterers' International Union Pension Fund v. Artistic Furniture of Pontiac
7th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Hawaii Carpenters Trust Funds v. Waiola Carpenter Shop Inc., 823 F.2d 289 (9th Cir.1987); Northwest Administrator's Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union 72 of the United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry of the United States & Canada v. John Payne Co. (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In the absence of judicial intrusion into those representational issues, there simply is no basis for concluding that adjudication of the Union’s suit by the district court will require it to invade the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. 5 See Con Iverson Trucking, 749 F.2d at 1340 (concluding that in deciding whether an employer has repudiated a prehire agreement, a district court need not necessarily decide representational issues within the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Plumbers and Pipefitters Local Union 72 v. John Payne Co., Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In the absence of judicial intrusion into those representational issues, there simply is no basis for concluding that adjudication of the Union's suit by the district court will require it to invade the primary jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. 5 See Con Iverson Trucking, 749 F.2d at 1340 (concluding that in deciding whether an employer has repudiated a prehire agreement, a district court need not necessarily decide representational issues within the primary jurisdiction of the NLRB).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mesa Verde Construction Co. v. Northern California District Council of Laborers, Mesa Verde Construction Company v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Board, Defendant
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Northwest Adm'rs, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984); accord John S. Griffith Constr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Mesa Verde Construction Co. v. Northern California District Council of Laborers
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Northwest Adm’rs, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984); accord John S. Griffith Constr.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gateway Structures, Inc. v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Board of United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a district court has jurisdiction over alter ego claims).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gateway Structures, Inc. v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Conference Board Of The United Brotherhood Of Carpenters And Joiners Of America, Afl-Cio
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984) (holding that a district court has jurisdiction over alter ego claims).
cited Cited "see" Petar Misic v. The Building Service Employees Health and Welfare Trust
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1339 (9th Cir.1984) (assignee of trust funds permitted to sue under ERISA). 5 .
cited Cited "see" John S. Griffith Construction Co. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiner
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984); Beck, 746 F.2d at 564-65 .
discussed Cited "see" John S. Griffith Construction Co. v. United Brotherhood Of Carpenters & Joiners Of Southern California
9th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984); Beck, 746 F.2d at 564-65 . 20 The "no decision" interpretation, which is a better description of the Board's action, presents a more difficult question, however.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." No. 92-15749
9th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Northwest Adm'rs, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984); Carpenters' Local Union No. 1478, 743 F.2d at 1276-77 ("[A] showing [that employees of both companies constitute a single bargaining unit] is not required under the alter ego doctrine."). 2 10 Relying on Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539 , 108 S.Ct. 830 , 98 L.Ed.2d 936 (1988), appellants also assert that ERISA does not provide the district court jurisdiction to enforce a collective bargaining agreement with North Bay employees who are not s…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." UA Local 343 of the United Ass'n v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Northwest Adm’rs, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984); Carpenters’ Local Union No. 1478, 743 F.2d at 1276-77 (“[A] showing [that employees óf both companies constitute a single bargaining unit] is not required under the alter ego doctrine.”). 2 Relying on Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539 , 108 S.Ct. 830 , 98 L.Ed.2d 936 (1988), appellants also assert that ERISA does not provide the district court jurisdiction to enforce a collective bargaining agreement with North Bay employees who are…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." UA Local 343 of the United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry v. Nor-Cal Plumbing, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Northwest Adm’rs, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984); Carpenters’ Local Union No. 1478, 743 F.2d at 1276-77 (“[A] showing [that employees of both companies constitute a single bargaining unit] is not required under the alter ego doctrine.”). 2 Relying on Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539 , 108 S.Ct. 830 , 98 L.Ed.2d 936 (1988), appellants also assert that ERISA does not provide the district court jurisdiction to enforce a collective bargaining agreement with North Bay employees who are …
discussed Cited "see, e.g." No. 92-15749
9th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Northwest Adm'rs, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984); Carpenters' Local Union No. 1478, 743 F.2d at 1276-77 ("[A] showing [that employees of both companies constitute a single bargaining unit] is not required under the alter ego doctrine."). 2 10 Relying on Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539 , 108 S.Ct. 830 , 98 L.Ed.2d 936 (1988), appellants also assert that ERISA does not provide the district court jurisdiction to enforce a collective bargaining agreement with North Bay employees who are not s…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance
D.D.C. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co., 720 F.Supp. 581, 582 (N.D.Tex.1989); Wisconsin Dept of Health and Social Servs. v. Upholsterers International Union Health and Welfare Fund, 686 F.Supp. 708, 713-14 (W.D.Wis.1988); see also Northwest Adm’rs, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1339 (9th Cir.1984) (assignee of trust funds permitted to sue under ERISA).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Trustees Of The Colorado Statewide Iron Workers (Erector) Joint Apprenticeship And Training Trust Fund v. A & P Steel, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70 v. Celotex Corp., 708 F.2d 488 , 490 n. 3 (9th Cir.1983) For cases where the courts have avoided ruling on the representational issue, see Northwest Adm'r Inc. v. Con Iverson, 749 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.1984); Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 70 v. California Consolidators, 693 F.2d 81 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 887 , 105 S.Ct. 263 , 83 L.Ed.2d 199 (1984); Local Union 204 of Int'l Bhd. of Elec.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Transamerica Airlines, Inc.
N.D. Cal. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Northwest Administrators v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir.1984) (court generally has no jurisdiction to decide representational issues in NLRA cases, but under § 301 it does have jurisdiction to determine whether one company was a successor or alter-ego to another which could be bound by an agreement the other entered, and if so, to determine whether the successor or alter-ego ever effectively repudiated the collective bargaining agreement).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Local 705, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Willett, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Northwest Administrators, Inc. v. Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., 749 F.2d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1984) and cases there cited.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
NORTHWEST ADMINISTRATORS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CON IVERSON TRUCKING, INC., Defendant-Appellee
83-4238, 83-4304.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 21, 1984.
749 F.2d 1338
Louis B. Reinwasser, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff-appellant., James Salter, Seattle, Wash., for defendant-appellee.
Boochever, Anderson, Skopil, Boo-Chever.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published
BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge:

Northwest Administrators, an administrative agency and assignee of several employee trust funds, brought this action under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) seeking to recover delinquent contributions allegedly owed by Con Iverson Trucking, Inc. under a construction industry prehire collective bargaining agreement. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires that the dispute be decided by the NLRB. We reverse and remand.

FACTS

On April 14, 1977, Con Iverson, as a sole proprietorship, entered into a multi-employer construction industry prehire agreement with the Teamsters requiring payment of benefit contributions to the trust funds. On July 6, 1979, Iverson incorporated and ceased making trust fund contributions. Representatives of the trust funds conducted an audit of the individual and corporate payroll records covering a time period from November 1977 to March 1981. Based on the audit, Northwest Administrators brought the instant action seeking to recover allegedly delinquent contributions.

Con Iverson Trucking, Inc., in defense, contended that as a corporate entity it was not the successor or alter-ego of Con Iver-son sole proprietorship and that, in any event, it had repudiated the agreement. The district court dismissed, invoking the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The court reasoned that resolving the dispute would require it to decide what constituted the appropriate bargaining unit of Con Iverson employees and whether the union had majority status in the unit, matters the court believed should be decided by the NLRB. The court also denied a motion by Con Iverson seeking attorney’s fees. Con Iver-son cross appeals the district court’s denial of fees. Both parties seek attorney’s fees for their efforts on appeal.

DISCUSSION

Usually district courts have no jurisdiction to decide representational issues and must leave them for decision by the NLRB. See South Prairie Construction Co. v. Local No. 627, International Union of Operating Engineers, 425 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1842, 48 L.Ed.2d 382 (1976) (per curiam) (in reviewing dismissal by NLRB of unfair labor practice charge based on theory two businesses constituted a single employer, court of appeals was required to remand to NLRB for initial determination of appropriate unit); Brotherhood of Teamsters Local No. 70 v. California Consolidators, Inc., 693 F.2d 81, 83 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (in section 301 action seeking declaratory judgment that company was bound to collective bargaining agreement, court had jurisdiction to determine whether entities constituted a single employer but could not declare company bound to the agreement because it would[*1340] require determination of the appropriate unit); Local No. 3-193 International Woodworkers of America v. Ketchikan Pulp Co., 611 F.2d 1295, 1301 (9th Cir.1980). Because of the nature of construction industry prehire agreements, however, the district court erred in concluding that it need necessarily decide representational issues in the case at bar.

Prehire agreements under section 8(f) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(f), are exempt from the general rule precluding a union from entering a collective bargaining agreement with an employer when it does not represent a majority of the affected employees, although a prehire agreement is subject to repudiation until the union establishes majority status. Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 461 U.S. 260, 103 S.Ct. 1753, 75 L.Ed.2d 830 (1983). Monetary obligations assumed by an employer under a prehire agreement prior to repudiation may be recovered in an action under section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, even though the union has failed to obtain majority status in the relevant unit. Id.

Before considering the existence of potential representational issues, the district court should have decided two potentially dispositive questions which do not concern representation. First, the court should have determined whether the Con Iverson Trucking, Inc. was in fact a successor or alter-ego which could be bound by the agreement entered by the Con Iverson sole proprietorship. District courts have jurisdiction under section 301 to make such determinations. See Roberts v. Ayala, 709 F.2d 520 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam); California Consolidators, 693 F.2d at 83. [1] Second, if it concluded the corporation could be bound as a successor, the court should have determined whether the corporation ever effectively repudiated the agreement. Absent an effective repudiation, the trust funds could recover even if the union did not represent a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit. Jim McNeff, Inc. v. Todd, 103 S.Ct. 1753. We remand to the district court for consideration of these issues.

Because we reverse and remand, we need not decide Con Iverson’s claims to attorney’s fees. Northwest Administrators is not presently entitled to fees under ERISA, because it has yet to recover a judgment in favor of the trusts. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

1

. The facts of this case differ significantly from those in Carpenters Union Local No. 4178 v. Neal Stevens, 743 F.2d 1271 (9th Cir.1984). There, this court reversed confirmation of an arbitrator’s award which found that two companies constituted a single employer despite the existence of a prior NLRB determination that the companies were not a single employer. In the case at bar there has been no prior NLRB proceedings.