Boeing Co. v. Int'l Union, 09 C 2213
| Decision Date | 19 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 09 C 2213,No. 12 C 2555,09 C 2213,12 C 2555 |
| Parties | THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW) and its LOCALS 952 and 1558, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE AEROSPACE AND
AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA (UAW) and its LOCALS 952 and 1558, Defendant.
No. 09 C 2213
No. 12 C 2555
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
ENTER: June 19, 2012
On September 16, 2009, this court enforced arbitration awards in favor of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America ("UAW") that ordered Boeing to pay back pay to workers it failed to treat as "laid-off" in a divestiture, in breach of its collective bargaining agreement ("CBA"). Boeing v. International Union 2009 WL 3027446 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ("Boeing I"). The Seventh Circuit affirmed this court's decision in Boeing v. International Union, 600 F. 3d 722, (7th Cir. 2010) ("Boeing II").1
After the Seventh Circuit's decision, the parties had several more skirmishes regarding remedies. These disputes were presented to the arbitrator, who issued an "Opinion and Second Supplemental Award" in April 10, 2010 (the "2010 Award"), and then a third Opinion and Third Supplemental Award on January 10, 2012 (the "2012 Award"). The 2012 Award, with which Boeing has refused to comply, requires Boeing, among other things not challenged, to pay as damages to bridge-eligible UAW members a monthly amount from Boeing equal to the monthly
Page 2
amount the members should have received from the Boeing Plan had the employee taken early retirement, until that employee began to receive benefits from Spirit (the new company) upon retirement. At that time, Boeing is to offset its payment by the amount the employee receives from Spirit.
Boeing has refused to comply with that portion of the Arbitrator's 2012 Award because it believes that it is "justifiably concerned that its compliance . . . in the manner directed by the Arbitrator would serve to create a pension plan within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Security Act ("ERISA") and would violate ERISA as well as applicable Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") regulations. As a result of Boeing's refusal to comply, the UAW moved to enforce this court's prior judgment and to confirm the 2010 and 2012 Awards (Doc. 63). Boeing responded by opening a new action (Boeing v. International Union, 12 C 2555) by filing a "Motion to Vacate the Pension Benefits Portion of the Arbitrator's Third Supplemental Award" (Doc.1)...
To continue reading
Request your trial