Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Hunt Truck Lines, Inc., 204 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2000). This appeal concerns the timing and process for disputing withdrawal liability payments governed by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1381-1461. "The MPPAA arose out of Congress' fear that any time an employer withdrew from a multiemployer pension plan (MPP) under ERISA it could set off a domino effect that, 'much like a bank run,' could leave the MPP unable to pay its vested obligations." The statute provides that an employer can be subject to withdrawal liability immediately upon withdrawal, in a "pay now, dispute later" arbitration scheme.
This
appeal consolidates two cases arising out of the same facts.
The dispute arose when Central States, a multiemployer pension fund,
assessed a withdrawal fee on June 3, 1996 against Hunt Truck Lines.
Hunt Truck Lines had sold its assets to Wintz Parcel Drivers, Inc.
Under the statute Hunt was therefore only secondarily liable for
withdrawal fees—i.e. Hunt avoided payment as long as Wintz made the required
contributions. Hunt argued, and the court agreed (based in part on Central
States' own admission), that Wintz had not made a withdrawal until July 1996;
therefore, Central States' assessment in June against Hunt was premature.
This court found that because Central States had admitted that Wintz's withdrawal occurred in July, and the parties did not contest basic facts, it was well within the court's authority to determine that the fund had not complied sufficiently with the statute to obtain the interim payments. Had there been a factual dispute, the statute would have required payment pending arbitration.
In the second case arising out of this same dispute, the court affirmed an arbitration award that assumed Hunt's liability but failed to provide for an enforceable money judgment. Central States believed these rulings left it in an odd and unjust position. Despite widespread agreement that Hunt owed withdrawal liability, Central States could not collect. This court found that Central States' perceived predicament was not so dire after all. Although it could not collect on the prior, premature demand, it could collect on a timely made one. If Hunt should fail to pay on this demand, Central States need merely file suit under the MPPAA's enforcement scheme to ensure that it receive interim payments.
