Carpenters Local Union No. 26 v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 215 F.3d 136 (1^st Cir. 2000) (unpublished)-The court reconsidered its holding in Williams v. Ashland Eng'g Co., 45 F.3d 588 (1^st Cir. 1995) that ERISA preempted a Massachusetts bond statute.  This court noted that the Supreme Court's holdings in Dillingham and Travelers represented new developments which required it to revise the decision upon which the district court had based the present case.  California Div. of Labor Standards Enforcement v. Dillingham Constr., 519 U.S. 316, 324 (1997); New York State Conf. of Blue Cross & Blue Shield Plans v. Travelers Ins. Co., 514 U.S. 645, 654 (1995).

The Massachusetts bond law required a general contractor on a public works project to post a bond covering labor and materials (including indebtedness incurred by subcontractors and suppliers for wages and fringe benefits). In the present case, when the subcontractor failed to make contributions in respect to fringe benefits, the union's collection agent, acting for the aggrieved employees, staked a claim on the bond. The question then arose whether the bond statute impermissibly supplies an alternative enforcement mechanism for ERISA plan benefits (and thereby triggers preemption).

After re-analyzing the meaning of the key concepts of "reference to" and "connection with," this court concluded that the bond statute neither singles out ERISA plans for special treatment nor depends on their existence as an essential part of its operation. Furthermore, it does not dictate the form that a covered plan may take, specify the mode or manner of plan administration, or jeopardize the sort of uniformity that Congress aspired to achieve.  It is merely "one of 'myriad state laws' of general applicability that impose some burdens on the administration of ERISA plans but nevertheless do not 'relate to' them."