Giler v. Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan of Southern California
Decision Date | 03 September 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 73--1149,73--1149 |
Citation | 509 F.2d 848 |
Parties | 89 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2859, 1 Employee Benefits Ca 1088 Henry GILER and all other present and former members of Locals 108, 420, 509, 206, 273, 152, 88, 26, and 426 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF SHEET METAL WORKERS PENSION PLAN OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Emanuel Gyler (argued), of Gyler & Gottlieb, Long Beach, Cal, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert W. Filbert (argued), Beverly Hills, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before HUFSTEDLER and CHOY, Circuit Judges, and SOLOMON, District Judge. *
The District Court dismissed an action in which Giler (plaintiff) asserted that the 'break-in-service' provision of his union's pension plan was invalid. We affirm.
Giler voluntarily withdrew his membership in the Sheet Metal Workers Union in September, 1965, to become self-employed. On that date he had accumulated 17 years in pension credits. In December, 1966, when Giler reached the age of 50, he applied to the trustees of the pension plan for the vesting of his pension rights. The trustees rejected the request because the plan required 20 years of pension credits to vest a pension at that age.
In 1971, the pension plan was amended to permit pension rights to a member with 15 years of service when he attained the age of 55. In December, 1971, when plaintiff reached 55, he applied for pension benefits. His request was denied because there was a break in service of more than two years.
The pension plan provided that an employee's previsouly accumulated pension credits would be cancelled if he failed to earn one quarter of pension credit in two consecutive calendar years. Plaintiff asserts that this rule violates 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5).
The trustees of a pension plan established under 29 U.S.C. § 186(c)(5) have broad discretion in setting eligibility rules. A court should interfere only when the rule is unreasonable or its enforcement arbitrary. Roark v. Lewis, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 360, 401 F.2d 425 (1968), adhered to sub nom. Roark v. Boyle, 141 U.S.App.D.C. 390, 439 F.2d 497 (1970).
In Lee v. Nesbitt, 453 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1972), the case upon which appellant relies, the employee had completed the minimum number of years of work credit in covered employment before he had a break in employment. And the break was involuntary; there was no work available for him.
Here Giler voluntarily left covered employment. He did not show that the trustees arbitrarily or capriciously enforced the rule. The break-in-service...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Malone v. Western Conf. of Teamsters Pension Trust
...be reversed. We have not failed to consider authority upon which the Trust principally relies: Giler v. Board of Sheet Metal Workers of So. Cal. (9th Cir. 1975) 509 F.2d 848; Burroughs v. Board of Tr. of Pens. Tr. F. For Op. Engrs. (N.D.Cal. 1975) 398 F.Supp. 168 (affd. 542 F.2d 1128, cert.......
-
Knauss v. Gorman
...Johnson v. Botica, 537 F.2d 930 (7th Cir. 1976); Wilson v. Board of Trustees, 564 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1977); Giler v. Board of Sheet Metal Workers, 509 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1975); Lee v. Nesbitt, 453 F.2d 1309 (9th Cir. 1972). See Local No. 5 v. Mahoning and Trumbull County Trades Welfare Fun......
-
Alvares v. Erickson
...and an implied duty of the trustees not to adopt arbitrary and capricious eligibility rules. Cf. Giler v. Board of Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers Pension Plan, 9 Cir., 1974, 509 F.2d 848 (applying the arbitrary and capricious standard to eligibility rules framed by pension plan trustees in......
-
Smith v. CMTA-IAM Pension Trust
...Retirement Fund, 604 F.2d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 1979); Rehmar v. Smith, 555 F.2d 1362, 1371 (9th Cir. 1976); Giler v. Board of Sheet Metal Workers of So. Cal., 509 F.2d 848, 849 Appellant argues that the trustees' interpretation of the Plan is incorrect because the Plan's provision for accru......