Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104

Legal name: International Assn of Smart No 104

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
940859420
IRS 990 coverage
2010–2025
Official website data refreshed
Sep 2026
Forms available
Form 990 2025
Location
Livermore, CA, US
Phone
(925) 314-8600
Rating
36
Verdict
REVIEW
Rating confidence
Moderate
Sector
Labor Unions

Official website

Reported finances

Revenue
$42,065,094
Expenses
$35,821,954
Assets
$108,409,350
Liabilities
$3,360,559

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

56 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Richard Werner (President/ business manager)
  • Keith Garcia (E-BOARD /VICE-PRESIDENT)

Highest reported compensation

  • Richard Werner (President/ business manager): $491,108 total reported compensation
  • Mike Nesbitt (Secretary/Treasurer): $435,434 total reported compensation
  • Brian Masters (Assistant Business Manager): $420,294 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 104 works on behalf of our membership’s best interest. Standing together to collectively bargain with our employers allows us the ability to improve working conditions and receive fair wages and benefits that our membership deserves.

What it reported doing in 2025

Extended benefits and solidarity to all of those working in sheet metal throughout northern California.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 93% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Cannot be determined from the filing. The filing does not provide enough consistent spending detail to tell whether the nonprofit works directly or through others.

The verdict

REVIEW - The filed numbers largely add up and most filed governance safeguards are in place. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 0
  • Transparency & Controls: 60
  • Accountability: 60
  • Sustainability: 61
  • Growth: 60

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Program expense ratio: 0%; rating input score 0
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 90%; rating input score 90; 5th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 61.9%; rating input score 62; 19th percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 31.6%; rating input score 32; 7th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 9 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 100
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 14.8%; rating input score 68; 68th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 3.03; rating input score 66; 66th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.03; rating input score 82; 82nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 31.4%; rating input score 2; 2nd percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: Limited
  • Revenue growth: 6.9% per year; rating input score 100; 56th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 8.4% per year; rating input score 100; 59th percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • What they do: 3 programs and campaigns described on the official site
  • Where the money goes: 0% of revenue deployed · 0% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 6 of 19 board members independent · 9 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment
  • Leadership: top reported pay $491K · 56 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 5 contractors listed · $1.7M reported
  • Consistency: 12 of 14 current checks pass · 2 findings to review
  • Schedules: 7 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 14 filing years from 2010 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 76 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 22 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 0/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 0/100.
  • Moderate — Accountability: Independent voting board scored 32/100.
  • Moderate — Transparency & Controls: Functional expense sum did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • Review — Transparency & Controls: Domestic grant itemization did not reconcile in the filed values.
  • High — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 2/100.