Pittsburgh Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'r, Local Union No. 66, No. 07-3938
In a case involving an agreement by a union to indemnify and hold harmless an employer for the employer's withdrawal liability to a pension plan under ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980 (MPPAA), the existence of a union contract is not a jurisdictional requirement under section 301, and the case is ripe for adjudication. The district court's judgment is vacated and remanded where there are not enough "definite indications" of public policy in ERISA or the MPPAA to preclude an indemnification agreement between an employer and a third party for the employer's withdrawal liability, where the employer agrees that it will always remain primarily liable for the liability.
Read Pittsburgh Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'r, Local Union No. 66, No. 07-3938
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (Civil No. 07-cv-00092)
District Judge: Honorable Gary L. Lnacaster
Argued September 29, 2008
Opinion Filed September 4, 2009
Before: Fisher, CHagares, and Hardiman, Circuit Judges
Opinion by Circuit Judge Chagares
Counsel for Appellant: James P. Thomas, Richard I. Thomas, Pepper Hamilton LLP
Counsel for Appellee: Joshua M. Blook, Joshua M. Bloom and Associates, P.C.
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.