Help

BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.

To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.

To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.

Login Register Subscribe

U.S. Supreme Court rules for employer in retiree benefits fight

Reprints
U.S. Supreme Court rules for employer in retiree benefits fight

(Reuters) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a company that amended a collective bargaining agreement to force retirees to pay toward health care costs, throwing out a lower-court ruling that favored the former employees who objected to the change.

On a unanimous vote, the nine-member court handed a win to M&G Polymers USA, a subsidiary of Italy-based chemical company Mossi & Ghisolfi International, by sending the case back for further proceedings in the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nearly 500 plaintiffs from Ohio who had worked at the M&G polyester plant in Apple Grove, West Virginia, sued in 2006 when the company said retirees would be required to contribute to their health care costs.

The plaintiffs, backed by the United Steelworkers union, said the collective bargaining agreement guaranteed them health benefits without requiring them to contribute.

The plaintiffs won in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Ohio following a bench trial, and the judge imposed an injunction reinstating the original benefits. In an August 2013 ruling, the 6th Circuit upheld the district court decision.

The question on which M&G sought high court review was whether the 6th Circuit correctly made a presumption in favor of the retirees after finding the contract did not clearly state the duration of the benefits.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing on behalf of the court, said the appeals court had not used the correct legal analysis.

Thomas wrote that “when a contract is silent as to the duration of retiree benefits, a court may not infer that he parties intended those benefits to vest for life.”

Read Next

  • Proposed spending bill lets some multiemployer plans cut retiree benefits

    Based on a proposal from the Partnership for Multiemployer Retirement Security, a business and labor group, the legislative amendment expected to be approved Wednesday would allow the most distressed multiemployer plans to cut retiree benefits to prevent plans from becoming insolvent and winding up at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. It also increases PBGC premiums to $26 from $13 per participant for all multiemployer plans, to address some of the multiemployer funding shortfall at the PBGC.