WASHINGTON?EUR??,,????'??+As reported by the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), a U.S. Court of Appeals has confirmed the rights of the employees of merit shop construction firms in a case supported by ABC?EUR??,,????'???s Construction Legal Rights Foundation, and ABC?EUR??,,????'???s Hawaii chapter. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled June 19, 2003 in Honolulu Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee of United Association Local Union No. 675 v. Foster that the Honolulu Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (HJA) of United Association Local Union 675 cannot recover the costs of training from a former union apprentice who chose to work for an open shop contractor. Affirming the lower court?EUR??,,????'???s decision, the circuit court denied the union?EUR??,,????'???s claim that the apprentice, James H. Foster, was responsible to repay the costs that HJA expended in training him. ?EUR??,,????'??This case affirms an employee?EUR??,,????'???s right to choose the most attractive employment opportunity, based on merit, and to obtain an education,?EUR??,,????'?? said Anita Drummond, ABC director of legal and regulatory affairs. Robert Joslin is president of Complete Mechanical Inc., the ABC member firm that employed Foster. Joslin stood by Foster throughout his struggle to choose to work for an open shop contractor. ?EUR??,,????'??I decided that I would do whatever it took to help Foster win this battle,?EUR??,,????'?? said Joslin. Foster enrolled in the HJA apprenticeship-training program from 1994 to 1998. Foster?EUR??,,????'???s training was paid for by a scholarship, which was funded by contributions from local employers with ties to the union. Among the terms of the scholarship, Foster was required to repay the costs of his training by either working for a participating union employer, or by monetary payment. Upon completing his training, Foster chose to work for an open shop contractor. HJA responded by filing suit against Foster. In this suit, HJA demanded return of over $13,000 as appropriate equitable relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), imposing ?EUR??,,????'??general personal liability on Foster for the costs it advanced under the scholarship loan agreement.?EUR??,,????'?? However, the 9th Circuit, affirming the lower court?EUR??,,????'???s decision, determined that Foster is not personally liable to reimburse the union under ERISA?EUR??,,????'???s equitable relief provision. Since the costs incurred in his training were non-specific and since no union funds were transferred directly, Foster was exempted from any liability.