The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices Local Union No. 74 is taking another swing at justice after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals struck down its $3.5 million pension victory earlier this year. The union claims the appellate panel’s decision conflicts directly with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and could send shockwaves through organized labor cases nationwide.

In a Friday petition for rehearing, the pipe fitters and plumbers’ union — alongside several benefit funds and trustees — urged the Third Circuit to reconsider or rehear the case en banc, arguing that the panel’s split September ruling misinterpreted the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and ignored key principles set forth by the Supreme Court.

At the Heart of the Battle: What Counts as “Hours Paid”?

The dispute stems from a 2020 ERISA lawsuit accusing Jones Lang LaSalle Americas Inc. (JLL) of failing to properly account for overtime pay when calculating pension contributions. The Delaware district court initially sided with the union in 2024, awarding $3.5 million in unpaid contributions, audit costs, liquidated damages, and interest.

But the Third Circuit reversed that decision in September, declaring that under the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), JLL was not required to increase pension contributions based on overtime wages. The appellate panel concluded that while overtime boosts an employee’s “applicable wage rate,” it does not alter the number of hours paid — the metric used to calculate contributions.

Union Says the Third Circuit Ignored Supreme Court Guidance

In its petition, the union blasted the ruling as “contrary to Supreme Court precedent,” citing the 2018 case CNH Industrial N.V. v. Reese, which set the standard for interpreting ambiguous terms in labor contracts.

According to the union, the panel failed to first determine whether the term “hours paid” could have multiple reasonable interpretations — a key step under the Reese framework. “The majority’s opinion will inevitably cause confusion within this circuit regarding how ambiguity is reviewed in collective bargaining agreements,” the filing warned.

The union emphasized that courts must assess whether a term is “reasonably susceptible” to more than one interpretation before choosing which side’s argument prevails. “Case law is clear that the question is not which interpretation wins,” the filing said, “but whether two reasonable interpretations exist.”

Broader Stakes for Organized Labor

Given the Third Circuit’s large union presence, the outcome could have sweeping implications for how collective bargaining agreements are interpreted across the region. A misstep, the union warned, could destabilize decades of labor law precedent and sow confusion in disputes over pensions, overtime, and benefits.

If the panel’s interpretation stands, the ruling could effectively limit how unions negotiate future pension calculations, particularly in industries where overtime is a significant component of worker compensation.

Who’s Representing Whom

The union, benefit funds, and trustees are represented by W. Daniel Feehan of Holroyd Gelman PC, while Jones Lang LaSalle Americas is represented by Brian J. Paul, Emily A. Kile-Maxwell, and Melinda R. Hudson of Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

Neither side has publicly commented on the latest petition.

The Road Ahead

The Third Circuit has yet to announce whether it will grant a panel or en banc rehearing, a move that could reopen the door for the union’s long-sought $3.5 million award. Until then, the case stands as a tense showdown between corporate interpretation and union protection, testing how far federal courts will go in redefining the meaning of a few crucial words — “hours paid.”