Skip to main content

Pace Industry Union-Management Pension Fund v. Dannex Manufacturing Co.

6th CircuitAugust 26, 2010No. 08-6545Cited 7 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Cole, Gilman, White
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage Theft

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund against Dannex Manufacturing, Annex Manufacturing, and Alan Funk for recovery of delinquent pension fund contributions, finding the defendants liable on theories of employer responsibility and fraudulent transfer.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** The PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund sued Dannex Manufacturing Company and related parties for failing to pay required pension contributions for union workers. The pension fund claimed the company owed money that should have been contributed to workers' retirement benefits but was never paid. The case also involved allegations that the company improperly transferred assets to avoid paying these obligations. **What the Court Decided** Both the lower court and appeals court ruled in favor of the pension fund. The courts found that Dannex Manufacturing and the other defendants were legally responsible for the unpaid pension contributions. The company could not escape liability by claiming it wasn't the real employer or by moving assets around to avoid payment. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling strengthens protections for union pension benefits. It shows that companies cannot simply ignore their obligation to contribute to worker pension funds, even if they try to restructure their business or transfer assets. When employers fail to make required pension payments, courts will hold them accountable and ensure workers' retirement security is protected. This helps guarantee that promised pension benefits will actually be funded.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Wage Theft cases

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.