Kennet v. United Mineworkers of America

2 Citing cases

  1. Bruch v. Firestone Tire and Rubber Co.

    828 F.2d 134 (3d Cir. 1987)   Cited 139 times
    Holding that in reviewing an employer's decision as trustee of an unfunded pension plan to deny severance benefits, the court should review the decision de novo, rather than defer to the trustee's interpretation of the contract

    See text above, typescript at 141. Judge Holtzoff, writing in 1960 in Kennet v. United Mineworkers of America, 183 F. Supp. 315 (D.D.C. 1960) still found the question vexing. He began his answer by noting that the LMRA "authorized the establishment of welfare funds by employers for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer and their families and dependents," and that "[t]he statute further provided . . . that the employees and employers were to be equally represented in the administration of th[e] fund."

  2. Aitken v. IP & GCU-Employer Retirement Fund

    604 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 40 times
    In Aitken v. IP GCU-Employer Ret. Fund, 604 F.2d 1261, 1266-69 (9th Cir. 1979) (Kennedy, J.), we reaffirmed Thurber and declined to read it narrowly.

    ThurberThurber Finally, although some courts have reached a contrary result, see Dohrer v. Wakeman, supra; Melang v. I. B. E. W. Pac. Coast Pension Fund, supra; Kennet v. U. M. W., 183 F. Supp. 315, 318 (D.D.C. 1960), and there are strong arguments on the other side, plaintiff's contention that a sole proprietor can be considered an "employee" as that word is used in section 302(c)(5) is not frivolous. The Supreme Court has indicated that the word "employee" in the LMRA may vary in scope depending on the policies of the specific LMRA section in question where inclusion or exclusion is not totally clear. See Allied Chemical Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 92 S.Ct. 383, 30 L.Ed.2d 341 (1971).