Union Presumed To Have Authority To Enter Into A Memorandum Withholding Vacation Benefits So As To Not Violate Penalty Wage Statute
Fanos, on behalf of himself and those similarlysituated,vs-Maersk Line, Ltd., Maersk Sealand, A. P. MollerGroup, Maersk, Inc., Wilmington Trust, Expander Transport Corporation, ExpediterTransport Corporation, Expresser Transport Corporation, Exporter TransportCorporation, and Extender Transport Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-40418
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
363 F.3d 358; 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 4558; 9 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 810
March 10, 2004, Filed
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff seaman appealed an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which granted summary judgment to defendants, a shipper, an owner, and contractors, in connection with the employee's action seeking wages and penalty wages pursuant to 46 U.S.C.S. § 10313.
OVERVIEW: The shipper and the contractors entered into a collective bargaining agreement with a union, which provided employees with paid vacation and required employers to contribute to union benefit plans. The contractors and the union later signed a memorandum of understanding which eliminated employers' duplicate benefit contributions for days when two officers were aboard a ship to perform one job. The shippers and the contractors were not required to pay vacation benefits directly to employees. Rather, they were required to make contributions to the union vacation plan, which distributed the funds. The seaman argued that withholdings pursuant to the memorandum of understanding were improper. The court held that assuming that the vacation benefits were wages, defendants did not violate § 10313 because the seaman did not allege that they did not make proper contributions to the plan and because defendants were not responsible for the withholding of the benefits. Further, the seaman showed no evidence that the union was not authorized to negotiate the terms of its members' employment. Thus, the memorandum of understanding provided sufficient cause for withholding the vacation benefits.
OUTCOME: The court affirmed the judgment.
