Employee trust fund dispute; The Labor Management Relations Act (the LMRA); Whether the trustees’ “deadlock” required arbitration; Whether the claim was “premature” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court affirmed the district court, holding that the employee benefit fund’s trust agreement required that the disagreement between the trustees could not be settled in federal court but instead must be submitted to arbitration. A dispute arose between the trustees selected by the participating employers and those selected by the union over features of the plan and the need to amend a tax return. The employer trustees went to court seeking the authority to amend the tax return. The union trustees argued that the dispute belonged in arbitration. The district court agreed with the union trustees and dismissed the case. The “deadlock provision” of the LMRA provides that when a deadlock occurs (e.g., three trustees against three trustees), the dispute must be arbitrated. Additionally, the claim was premature under ERISA where plaintiffs were required “to exhaust remedies under the plan.” The court noted that the “Second Circuit and the Third Circuit have handled similar cases in similar fashion. Each has held that disappointed trustees may not bring ERISA claims without first availing themselves of deadlock arbitration provisions.” The court rejected plaintiffs’ claim that no deadlock occurred because the matter never came to an actual vote, holding that a “the trust agreement does not require a merits vote for a deadlock to exist. It requires only that a proposal ‘is not adopted by a majority vote.’” Lastly, the court held that the district court should have dismissed the case under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and not under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction.