Gillick v. Elliott, No. 20-1686 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Employer-appointed trustees filed a complaint in the district court seeking the appointment of an impartial umpire to resolve a deadlock on a motion, pursuant to Section 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act, brought by one of the employer-appointed trustees. The district court dismissed the complaint and declined to appoint an umpire.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed, concluding that, based on the entirety of the Trust Agreement, the delegation proposed by the employer trustees' motion is beyond the trustees' authority to implement. The court explained that because the proposed delegation and amendment to the Trust Agreement are beyond the trustees' authority to implement, the deadlocked motion is not a matter arising in connection with the administration of the plan or a matter within the trustees' jurisdiction. Therefore, the Trust Agreement does not authorize the appointment of a neutral umpire to resolve the deadlocked motion. Furthermore, because the court found that adopting the employer trustees' proposed motion would require amending the Trust Agreement, the court also necessarily concluded that the deadlocked motion does not concern trust fund "administration" under section 302(c)(5). Accordingly, the deadlocked motion is not a matter of trust "administration" under either the Trust Agreement or section 302(c)(5), and thus the district court did not err in declining to appoint an umpire.
Court Description: [Shepherd, Author, with Erickson and Kobes, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Labor Law. In action by the Employer Trustees of the Welfare Trust asking the district court to appoint an impartial umpire to resolve a deadlocked motion pursuant to Section 302(c)(5) of the Labor Management Relations Act, the district court concluded the motion was invalid under the Act's "equal representation" requirement. Based on the entirety of the Trust Agreement, the delegation proposed by the Employer Trustees' deadlocked motion is beyond the Trustees' authority to implement and would require amending the Trust Agreements; as a result, the deadlocked motion does not concern trust fund "administration" under the Act or the Agreement, and is not the kind of dispute for which the Trustees may seek the appointment of an umpire.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.