Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. Leslie G. Delbon Co. Inc., 199 F.3d 1109 (9^th Cir. 2000). The Ninth Circuit addressed when an employer may no longer be obligated to pay into a fund. Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California (the "Fund") appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Leslie G. Delbon Co., Inc. in the Fund's action to collect unpaid employer contributions.  This court affirmed the district court’s holding that after 1984, Delbon had no obligation to make contributions to the Fund.

In 1980, Delbon signed a collective bargaining agreement, the terms of which provided for automatic renewal for 1-year periods if specific notice requirements for termination were not followed.  In January 1983, Delbon failed to terminate properly its involvement in the CBA when it withdrew from its representative the authority to negotiate on Delbon's behalf.  The Union informed Delbon by letter that this was insufficient to terminate Delbon's ongoing commitment to the CBA. Delbon's president, however, informed the Union in April, 1984 of his intention to terminate the CBA effective June 15, 1984.

In 1996, the Fund brought this suit seeking payment of delinquent contributions allegedly owing under the 1980 CBA.  The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Delbon, holding there had been a valid, final termination of the CBA in 1984.  This court agreed, pointing out that since the Union threatened to file suit, but instead did nothing for over ten years, Delbon was entitled to believe that the Union had abandoned its challenge to the termination and that its contribution obligation was at an end.

This court stated that it had decided in a previous case that although trust funds should not be forced to litigate ongoing termination disputes, employers also should not be forced to arbitrate non-existent ones.  Carpenters Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Cal. v. Bla-Delco Constr., Inc., 8 F.3d 1365 (9^th Cir. 1993).  Union decertification, or the absence of an ongoing collective bargaining agreement, is a proper defense to an ERISA collection action.  See Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Assn. v. West Coast Sheet Metal Co., 954 F.2d 1506 (9^th Cir. 1992).