International Union, United Auto., Aerospace and Agr. Implement Workers of America and its Local 784 v. Cadillac Malleable Iron Co., Inc., 83-1289

• Decision Date: 08 March 1984
• Docket Number: No. 83-1289,83-1289
• Citation: 728 F.2d 807
• Parties: 115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3099, 100 Lab.Cas. P 10,878, 5 Employee Benefits Ca 1283 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA AND ITS LOCAL 784; Raymond F. McConnell and Robert S. Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. CADILLAC MALLEABLE IRON COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 807

728 F.2d 807

115 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3099, 100 Lab.Cas. P 10,878,

5 Employee Benefits Ca 1283

INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND

AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA AND ITS LOCAL 784;

Raymond F. McConnell and Robert S. Lee, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. CADILLAC MALLEABLE IRON COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-1289.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 13, 1984.

Decided March 8, 1984.

Richard A. Hooker (argued), Schmidt, Howlett, Van't Hof, Snell & Vana, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendant-appellant.

Michael L. Fayette, Kleiner, DeYoung & Fayette, Grand Rapids, Mich., Judith A. Scott, Asst. General Counsel, International Union, UAW, Legal Dept., Leonard R. Page (argued), Detroit, Mich., for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before LIVELY, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and TAYLOR, District Judge. ^*

LIVELY, Chief Judge.

This is a declaratory judgment action by the union and two retired employees of Cadillac Malleable Iron Company, Inc. (Malleable Iron). The plaintiffs sought a determination by the district court that Malleable Iron is contractually obligated to provide to retired employees for the duration of their lives, certain insurance benefits provided for in various collective bargaining agreements between the union and Malleable Iron. The complaint also sought injunctive relief and a judgment for expenditures made by the plaintiffs as a result of the employer's decision that such benefits had terminated. The question presented for decision is whether benefits consisting of life insurance and hospital and health insurance of retired employees continue during the lifetime of such employees or may be terminated by the employer at the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement under which the right to the benefits was acquired.

The district court conducted a trial after which it entered a comprehensive opinion containing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The district court canvassed the history of collective bargaining between the union and Malleable Iron. It gave detailed consideration to the actions of the employer with respect to the payment of premiums for life and health insurance of retired employees during periods when no collective bargaining agreement was in effect. The district court then concluded that it was the intention of the parties that retirement benefits be made payable for the life of retired employees. The court found that "the inherent duration of the retirement status beyond any particular contract" supported its conclusion that the parties intended for these benefits to continue during the lifetime of each retired employee.

On appeal Malleable Iron argues that the district court reversed the burden of proof in this case by applying a presumption that retirement benefits are vested for life in the absence of an explicit showing of a contrary intent. It argues that the plaintiffs had the burden of proving the existence of an intent to provide these benefits for the lifetime of retired employees and that no presumption applied. While we agree with Malleable Iron that there is no legal presumption based on the status of retired employees, we do not believe that this leads to a conclusion that the district court erred in its determination. The district court relied on the bargaining history of the parties which included consideration of seven agreements and three strikes during which the employer never indicated that retired employees were entitled to...