The opinion of the court was delivered by: GREEN
The difficult questions before the Court concern the legality and enforceability of a clause of the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1974 (hereinafter the "1974 Agreement")
providing for a royalty payment to the United Mine Workers of America Health and Retirement Funds (hereinafter the "Funds") on all bituminous coal procured or acquired by a signatory employer for use or for sale on which contributions to the Funds had not been made (hereinafter the "purchase-of-coal clause").
The purchase-of-coal clause is only one component of the 1974 Agreement which establishes the terms and conditions of employment for Kaiser Steel Corporation (hereinafter "Kaiser") coal mining employees. The 1974 Agreement also requires Kaiser to make payments to the Funds based on the hours worked and coal produced by its employees.
Kaiser, a member of the BCOA and therefore a signatory to the 1974 Agreement, made contributions on the coal produced by its own 400 UMWA employees but failed to make any contributions pursuant to the purchase-of-coal clause. Kaiser never acknowledged any coal purchases voluntarily despite the fact that the terms of the 1974 Agreement were apparently based on the parties' understanding that the Trustees of the Funds would rely upon signatory operators to furnish information concerning the amount of coal produced and purchased (Complaint, Exhibit A, p. 29). The signatories reported under separate entries the tonnage of coal purchased and produced and also calculated the amount of contributions payable to the Funds on "remittance advice forms" supplied by the Trustees.
Kaiser also failed to inform the Trustees voluntarily of its decision to withhold Fund contributions required by the purchase-of-coal clause. Had Kaiser elected to test the purchase-of-coal clause during the term of the 1974 Agreement, a contract provision calling for renegotiation in the event of a successful challenge could have been invoked by the Union in order to remedy the resulting deficiency in pension benefit contributions from signatories.
The Trustees contend that Kaiser effectively foreclosed the intended application of the renegotiation provision by failing to disclose coal purchases and deprived covered employees of part of their bargained-for wages which the Trustees now seek to recover.
On April 11, 1978, the Trustees of the Funds brought this suit under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185 and Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 seeking to recover from Kaiser contributions alleged to be due and owing to the Funds pursuant to the purchase-of-coal clause.
Plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment arguing that the principles announced in Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516, 79 S. Ct. 429, 3 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1959) require judicial intervention and enforcement of payments pursuant to the purchase-of-coal provisions regardless of Kaiser's claims of illegality.
Finally, the Trustees argue that the Court is without jurisdiction to hear a Section 8(e) defense and failing this, that several disputed issues of material fact preclude summary judgment in favor of Kaiser.
The decision in Kelly v. Kosuga, 358 U.S. 516, 79 S. Ct. 429, 3 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1959) restated the position of the United States Supreme Court regarding recognition of a defense of antitrust illegality to an action brought on a contract. In Kelly, as in prior decisions, the Court attempted to accommodate the competing interests involved: enforcement of a contract provision which may in itself be unlawful or in furtherance of illegal ends and thereby frustrating public policy, or denial of recovery which may result in unjust enrichment at the plaintiff's expense or otherwise impose a penalty unrelated to the character of plaintiff's illegal acts and thereby give defendant a windfall.
The contract sued upon in Kelly
provided for the sale of fifty carloads of onions at market price to an onion grower and included an agreement by the vendor not to deliver onions on the futures market in order to maintain artificially high prices. This contract was one aspect of a larger price maintenance scheme in which other onion growers purchased additional onions from the vendor and then agreed among themselves not to market the onions. The vendee accepted delivery of thirteen carloads but only made partial payment before refusing delivery of the remaining thirty-seven carloads. After repudiation by the vendee, the vendor sold the rapidly deteriorating onions at a reduced price in mitigation of damages and brought suit on the contract for the unpaid purchase price. The vendee argued that the sale was made pursuant to and as an indivisible part of an agreement restraining trade in violation of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff's motion to strike this affirmative defense was granted by the trial court which rendered summary judgment for the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court upheld a judgment for the contract price in favor of the vendor and stated:
As a defense to an action based on contract, the plea of illegality based on violation of the Sherman Act has not met with much favor in this Court. This has been notably the case where the plea has been made by a purchaser in an action to recover from him the agreed price of goods sold.
Past the point where the judgment of the Court would itself be enforcing the precise conduct made unlawful by the (Sherman) Act, the courts are to be guided by the overriding general policy, as Mr. Justice Holmes put it, "of preventing people from getting other people's property for nothing when they purport to be buying it." . . . Supplying a sanction for the violation of the Act, not in terms provided ...