Trieste v. Graphic Communications Teamsters Local 503

Filing 27

-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP- DECISION AND ORDER granting 23 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety. (Clerk to close case.) Signed by Hon. Michael A. Telesca on 11/9/15. (JMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHAEL TRIESTE,
14-cv-6413
DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff,
-vsGRAPHIC COMMUNICATIONS TEAMSTERS
LOCAL 503 et al,
Defendant.
INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Michael Trieste (“plaintiff”) brings this action
under

the

Employee

Retirement

Income

Security

Act

(“ERISA”)

alleging that defendants, Graphic Communications Teamsters Local
503 (“Local 503"), a union, and Inter-Local Pension Fund of the
Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters (the “Pension Fund”) made false representations to him
that

as

a

union

member,

he

was

required

to

make

monetary

contributions to the Pension fund as a condition of his employment.
Presently before the Court is defendants’ motion to dismiss
plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on grounds that the plaintiff has
failed to state a claim under ERISA upon which relief can be
granted.
granted.

For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff
May 22, 2012.

began

his

employment

with

Hammer

Packaging

on

As a condition of his employment he was required to

join the Union Local 503 and participate in the Pension Fund as
provided in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”).

Despite

plaintiff’s protests and refusal to participate in the Pension
Fund, he contributed $1551.14 from April 6, 2013 to December 28,
2013 for which he seeks reimbursement.

Three of plaintiff’s

co-workers, Kevin Wilson, John Diaz, and Joe Parlier, allegedly
informed plaintiff that they had been treated differently with
respect to the Pension Fund, and that Local 503 did not require
Pension

Fund

participation

from

all

employees

even

though

plaintiff’s employer, Hammer Packaging, was a union shop. See
Collective Bargaining Agreement, Article 2 (Docket No. 10).
Plaintiff

contends

that

he

was

subjected

to

disparate

treatment as a Hammer packaging employee and Local 503 member, and
he seeks a judgment for the $1,551.42 that he was forced to
contribute to the Pension Fund.

In their motion to dismiss,

defendants assert that plaintiff’s allegations against Local 503,
if true, do not constitute an ERISA violation, but at most a breach
of defendants’ duty of fair representation, a claim that is, in any
event, untimely. Defendants further assert that plaintiff fails to
state

or

provide

evidence

that

the

Pension

Fund

made

any

representations to him regarding an option not to participate in

2

Local 503's Pension Fund.

Moreover, any allegations regarding

statements claimed to be made by a Local 503 representative are
insufficient

to

support

his

claim

contributions to the Pension Fund.

for

reimbursement

of

his

Plaintiff responds by pointing

out that the president of Local 503, Michael Stafford, is also on
the Board of Trustees of the Pension Fund, thus implying that both
entities, Local 503 and the Pension Fund, are connected.
DISCUSSION
I.

General Legal Principles
In reviewing a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6),

the Court must accept “all factual allegations in the complaint and
draw . . . all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor.”
Ruotolo v. City of New York, 514 F.3d 184, 188 (2d Cir.2008)
(internal quotation marks omitted). “While a complaint attacked by
a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual
allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his
entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions,
and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do[.]” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007) (citation omitted).

In order to withstand dismissal, the

complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. Conclusory allegations are
not entitled to any assumption of truth and will not support a
finding that the plaintiff has stated a valid claim. See Lundy v.
3

Catholic Health System of Long Island, Inc., 711 F.3d 106, 113 (2d
Cir.2013) (citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 679 (2009).
“To survive dismissal, the plaintiff must provide the grounds upon
which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient ‘to
raise

a

right

to

Communications,

relief

Inc.

v.

above
Shaar

the
Fund,

speculative
Ltd.,

493

level’”
F.3d

ATSI

87,

98

(2d Cir.2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
ERISA was enacted to “protect the interests of participants in
employee benefit plans and their beneficiaries by setting out
substantive regulatory requirements for employee benefit plans and
to provide for appropriate remedies, sanctions, and ready access to
the Federal courts.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200,
208, 124 S. Ct. 2488 (2004), quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1001(b)(internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, plaintiff acknowledges that he voluntarily joined the
Local 503 union, but claims that he made involuntary contributions
to

the

Pension

Fund

for

nine

months.

First,

as

noted

in

defendants’ memorandum of law, assuming that plaintiff is claiming
that Local 503 misrepresented to him that participation in, and
contributions to, the Pension Fund was not mandatory. Such a claim
for

violation

of

the

statutory

duty

of

fair

representation,

however, must be brought within six months of the date of the
alleged breach, which had long expired.

4

Second, the amended complaint fails to state which provision
of ERISA was violated by defendants and the facts and circumstances
upon which the alleged ERISA violation is based.

Defendants

explain that because of the bad economy in recent years, the
Pension Fund had to make some cuts to pension benefits in order to
maintain the long term viability of the Plan.

Thus, Local 503

permitted some members to withdraw from continued participation in
the Plan; however, no member who withdrew as an active participant
was permitted to withdraw their contributions to the Pension Fund.
Plaintiff benefitted from this cutback and was permitted to cease
making contributions to the Pension Fund.

The defendants further

argue that plaintiff does not allege that his right to recover
benefits have been denied but instead seeks a return of the funds
that he contributed during the limited period between April 2013
through December 2013. The Court notes that plaintiff has cited no
authority that, as a Pension Fund participant, he had the right to
withdraw his contributions to the fund. Moreover, there is nothing
in the CBA that grants plaintiff the entitlement to withdraw his
Pension Fund contributions. Article V of the Trust Indenture
governing the Pension Fund states that a pension member is entitled
to receive a withdrawal benefit only “if such member at the time of
termination of participation in the Fund has ceased to be engaged
in the graphic arts industry either as an employee or in a direct
supervisory capacity” (Docket No. 4 [exhibit E]). That was not the

5

case here since plaintiff continued employment at Hammer, and
although he was permitted to cease his participation in the Pension
Fund, he was not entitled to withdraw his prior contributions.
However, it is undisputed that plaintiff will be entitled to
receive benefits under the terms of the Pension Fund when he
retires, based on his contribution to the Fund.
Plaintiff’s

claim

that

Local

503,

in

requiring

his

participation in the Pension Fund as a condition of employment,
engaged in disparate treatment and acted in a manner that was
arbitrary and capricious (see Amended Complaint [Docket No. 18]),
if proven true, would be a breach of Local 503's duty of fair
representation, not a breach of ERISA.

“It is well-established

that, under the National Labor Relations Act . . . , a labor
organization has a statutory duty of fair representation ‘to serve
the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination
toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and
honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.’” Shaw v. Gen. Motors
Corp., No. CIV-81-143E, 1991 WL 155581, at *5 (W.D.N.Y.1991),
quoting Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190 (U.S. 1967).
extent

that

plaintiff

raises

a

breach

of

the

duty

To the
of

fair

representation claim against Local 503 in his amended complaint,
“such claim must be filed within six months of the time when union
members know or reasonably should know that a breach of that duty

6

has occurred.” Heller v. Consol. Rail Corp., 331 F. App'x 766, 768
(2d Cir.2009).

That time to make such a claim has passed.

While the amended complaint arguably asserts an equitable
relief claim under the catchall ERISA provision § 502(a)(3),
plaintiff fails to provide the factual grounds upon which his claim
is

based

sufficient

“to

raise

a

right

to

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

relief

above

the

The Court therefore

concludes that a cognizable ERISA claim has not been stated in the
amended complaint and, therefore, the amended complaint is subject
to dismissal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, defendants’ motion to dismiss
the amended complaint (Docket No. 23) is granted, and the amended
complaint (Docket No. 18) is dismissed in its entirety.

The Clerk

of the Court is directed to close this case.
ALL OF THE ABOVE IS SO ORDERED.
S/ MICHAEL A. TELESCA
HONORABLE MICHAEL A. TELESCA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: Rochester, New York
November 9, 2015

7