Bierley v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co.

Decision Date21 September 1979
Citation374 So.2d 1341
PartiesGeorge B. BIERLEY, Jr. v. AMERICAN CAST IRON PIPE COMPANY, a corp., et al. 78-173.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Robert L. Shields, III, Irondale, for appellant.

A. Brand Walton, Jr., Birmingham, for American Cast Iron Pipe Co., appellee.

ALMON, Justice.

George B. Bierley, Jr. brought an action to obtain pension benefits. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

In September of 1941 Bierley entered the employ of the defendant American Cast Iron Pipe Company (ACIPCO). As an employee of ACIPCO he would be eligible for pension benefits if certain criteria are met. These benefits were paid from the Eagan Plan, a trust set up by John J. Eagan, for the benefit primarily of employees and their families.

The Eagan Plan used actuarial methods to determine the amount which must be contributed to it to pay promised benefits. A basic assumption used by the actuary is that not all employees will qualify for a pension and those not qualifying will not receive a pension.

Bierley was discharged by ACIPCO on October 4, 1971, after thirty years of continuous employment. The reason for his termination was that he had attacked and killed a fellow employee. This conduct violated ACIPCO Plant Rule number three, which specified that he must be discharged.

When Mr. Bierley attained the age of sixty on May 20, 1976, he applied for an early retirement pension. ACIPCO denied his pension claim. He then brought suit alleging that:

(1) ACIPCO breached its pension rules by refusing to pay him his pension and (2) he is entitled, under quantum meruit, to pension benefits due to his lengthy service for the Company;

this denial was both arbitrary and capricious;

(3) ACIPCO misrepresented to him, both orally and in written form, the terms of the pension;

(4) he was wrongfully discharged from employment with the Company;

(5) ACIPCO breached its duty to administer the plan under the "Golden Rule."

The Pension Rules of ACIPCO allow early retirement at age sixty. The provision reads:

SPECIAL PENSIONS

16. Any regular full-time employee who has been in the continuous service of the American Cast Iron Pipe Company twenty (20) years or more and has reached the age of sixty (60) years may be retired and pensioned either at the employee's own request or at the request of the Board of Directors, subject to the approval of the Pension Board.

Bierley fails to comply with the language of this provision. To qualify for an early pension, he must have been in the employ of ACIPCO at the time he became sixty years of age. As in Avondale Mills v. Saddler, 292 Ala. 134, 290 So.2d 173 (1974), this Court will not rewrite the provisions of a pension plan. The rights of the beneficiaries must be determined from the provisions of the retirement plan itself.

Bierley also asserts that he is entitled to benefits from the pension plan because of the Company's contribution to the plan during the period of his employment. He states that the contributions were, in effect, deferred compensation to which he has a vested interest.

For an employee to have a vested interest in this trust he must meet the requirements of the trust. Avondale Mills v. Saddler, 292 Ala. 134, 137, 290 So.2d 173, 176 (1974). Bierley did not meet the requirements of the trust provisions and, consequently, he had no vested interest. Age requirements, when used in accordance with an actuarially based pension plan have been specifically upheld by this Court. Staub v. Alabama Power Co.,350 So.2d 386 (Ala.1977).

Bierley's next argument is that ACIPCO misrepresented the conditions of retirement to him, both orally and in writing, thereby breaching his contract of employment.

Bierley only alleged that oral misrepresentations were made. He never stated who made them. We find that mere allegations that misrepresentations have...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Campbell
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • July 10, 1987
    ...Ship Repair, Inc. v. Stevens, 379 So.2d 594 (Ala.1980); Newby v. City of Andalusia, 376 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1979); Bierley v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 374 So.2d 1341 (Ala.1979); Martin v. Tapley, 360 So.2d 708 (Ala.1978). In Bender Ship Repair, Inc. v. Stevens, 379 So.2d 594 (Ala.1980), we ......
  • Meeks v. Opp Cotton Mills, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 7, 1984
    ...a seventy-year-old rule. The Court was asked to change the rule again and refused to do so in the following years: 1979 Bierley v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co. 374 So.2d 1341 Newby v. City of Andalusia 376 So.2d 1374 1980 Bender Ship Repair, Inc. v. Stevens 379 So.2d 594 Carver v. Metrobank,......
  • Meredith v. C.E. Walther, Inc.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • September 17, 1982
    ...Repair, Inc. v. Stevens, 379 So.2d 594 (Ala.1980); Newby v. City of Andalusia, 376 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1979); Bierley v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, 374 So.2d 1341 (Ala.1979); Martin v. Tapley, 360 So.2d 708 Plaintiff asks this court to abandon the employment at will rule and to recognize ......
  • Johnson v. Gary
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1983
    ...Repair, Inc. v. Stevens, 379 So.2d 594 (Ala.1980); Newby v. City of Andalusia, 376 So.2d 1374 (Ala.1979); Bierley v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, 374 So.2d 1341 (Ala.1979); Martin v. Tapley, 360 So.2d 708 Meredith v. C.E. Walther, Inc., 422 So.2d 761, 762 (Ala.1982). This case presents ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT