Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Health Benefits and Pension Funds v. New Bakery Company of Ohio’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.3d 955 · 1998
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Northwestern Ohio Administrators, Inc. v. Walcher & Fox, Inc. (2001), Operating Engineers Local 324 Health Care Plan v. G & W Construction Co. (2015)
6 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Wiley v. United States · Brooks v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. · Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Gerber Truck Service, Inc. · Central Pennsylvania Teamsters Pension Fund v. McCormick Dray Line, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every employer who is obligated to make contributions to a multiemployer plan under the terms of the plan or under the terms of a collectively bargained agreement shall, to the extent not inconsistent with law, make such contributions in accordance with the terms and conditions of such plan or such agreement.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Multi-employer p]lans rely on documents to determine the income they can expect to receive, which governs their determination of levels of benefits.... Once they promise a level of benefits to employees, they must pay even if the contributions they expected to receive do not materialize.... Costs of tracking down reneging employers and litigating also come out of money available to pay benefits. The more complex the litigation, the more the plan must spend. Litigation involving conversations between employers and local union officials — conversations to which plans are not privy — may be especially costly, and hold out especially great prospects of coming away empty-handed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Congress enacted section 515 in order to permit multiemployer plans to rely upon the terms of collective bargaining agreements and plans as written, thus permitting trustees of plans to recover delinquent contributions efficaciously, and without regard to issues which might arise under labor-management relations law.... Because, under section 515, multiemployer plans are entitled to rely on the literal terms of written commitments between the plan, the employer, and the union, the actual intent and understanding between the contracting parties are immaterial.... The fund thus stands much like a holder in due course in commercial law who is entitled to enforce the writing without regard to understandings or defenses applicable to the original parties.... By allowing multiemployer funds to enforce the literal terms of an employer’s commitment, section 515 increases the reliability of their income streams, reduces the cost and delay associated with collection actions, and reduces or eliminates the cost of monitoring the formation of collective bargaining agreements.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.