NEBF accepted the undisputed allegations of the complaint and the evidence provided by NEBF in its application to show that Great Lakes was bound by the terms of the collective agreements and the trust agreement and determined Great Lakes` liability for non-payment of contributions required by the collective agreements and the trust agreement. This term, contained in each collective agreement, is consistent with Article 6 of the Trust Agreement and the Trust Agreement, which is included in each collective agreement. (ECF 11-1 to 2-8.) Federal law governs the interpretation of terms in collective agreements and trust agreements. See Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 456 (1957). “The question of whether a contractual clause is clear or ambiguous is only a question of law. . .
. Teamsters Industrial Employees Welfare Fund v. Rolls-Royce Motor cars, Inc. 989 F.2d 132, 135 (3d Cir. 1993). “It is for the court to interpret a written contract when” the conditions and circumstances are clear. Nursing Home Retirement Fund and Health Professionals Phila. and Vicinity v. Resthaven Nursing Ctr., No.
07-0313, 2008 WL 2132097, at `3 (E.D. Pa. May 20, 2008) (referring to Sheet Metal Workers Local 19 v. Keystone Heating Air Conditioning, 934 F.2d 35, 41 (3d Cir. 1991)). In determining whether a contractual clause is ambiguous, the courts consider “the terms of the contract, the alternative meaning proposed by counsel, and the nature of the objective evidence to be provided in support of that meaning.” Resthaven Nursing, 2008 WL 2132097, at 3. Courts examine the parties` possibilities as well as objective clues to determine whether a contract is capable of more than one construction. The defendants call on the Tribunal to reconsider the Court`s opinion of June 30, 2008, in which the Tribunal granted the applicant`s request for summary judgment and dismissed the defendant`s cross-application on summary summary synthesis order. The central issue between the applicant and the defendants is whether leave and leave pay are part of the “gross wage list” and should be taken into account in calculating the amount of contributions outstanding by the defendants to the applicant. (Id. to 5.) The defendants argue that the leave and leave allowance granted to certain workers should not be taken into account in calculating the amount of contributions owed.
The applicants argued that the terms of the trust agreement require contributions on the basis of wages and other allowances, including paid leave and leave.