Local Union No. 150-A, United Food and Commercial Workers Intern. Union, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Dubuque Packing Co., AFL-CI
| Decision Date | 04 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1676,CLC,AFL-CI,84-1676 |
| Parties | 118 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3031, 102 Lab.Cas. P 11,407, 6 Employee Benefits Ca 1391 LOCAL UNION NO. 150-A, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,, and Laverne Wersinger, Delbert Kramer, Clyde Boge, Melvin Maas, Donald Smith, Mary Brand, Lucille Hartford, Joseph G. Grant, Lester Butler, Janet Kenkel and Irma Schoenberger, Individually and as Class Representatives, Appellees, v. DUBUQUE PACKING CO., an Iowa Corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Raymond Kelly, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Russell Woody, Chicago, Ill., for appellees.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRIGHT, Circuit Judge.
This appeal involves a class action brought by the Union and various representatives of retired employees seeking, under Sec. 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185 and Sec. 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132, to enforce alleged contractual rights to certain health and welfare benefits. The dispute arises out of the Dubuque Packing Company closing of its plant in Dubuque, Iowa and termination of the collective bargaining agreement. Over Union protest, the Company refused to continue health and welfare benefits but agreed to submit the Union's grievance to arbitration as it affected current employees who would retire during the life of the collective bargaining agreement (which ran from September 1979 to September 1983). The Company refused to arbitrate the grievance concerning those who had previously retired on the ground that the Union did not represent retired former employees. After the arbitrator held that the current employees had a vested interest in all health and welfare benefits except life insurance, the Union brought this suit to require the Company to continue payments to all retirees, including those who retired before September 1979.
The district court found that the arbitration award was controlling as to the rights of employees who retired on or after September 1, 1979. The district court held that although the arbitrator's award was not dispositive of the rights of those who retired before September 1, 1979, under the contract the Company must continue payment of benefits to all past retirees as well. The court issued a permanent injunction requiring the Company to continue the benefits provided under the agreement to all retired employees. This appeal followed.
On April 12, 1982, during the term of the 1979 Health and Welfare Plan and collective bargaining agreement, the Company gave notice to the Union that it intended to close the plant on October 16, 1982. The Company and the Union had previously negotiated changes in their agreement and extended it to September 1, 1983. Based on the Company's statement that all retirees' health and welfare benefits would terminate when the collective bargaining agreement expired on September 1, 1983, the Union filed two grievances.
The first grievance sought to have all employees who would retire during the remaining term of the then current collective bargaining agreement receive benefits after the collective bargaining agreement and the Health and Welfare Plan had expired. The second grievance sought continued coverage for the former employees who retired before September 1, 1979.
The Company refused to arbitrate the second grievance because the Company claimed the Union could only represent bargaining unit members. The Company did agree to submit the first grievance to arbitration.
The arbitrator's award was rendered on June 20, 1983. The arbitrator held:
[I]t is the judgment of the arbitrator that the parties did specifically provide for the continuation of certain insurance benefits and the arbitrator has determined based on this clear contract language, and other evidence presented, that the Company is obligated to continue those benefits after the expiration of the labor Agreement for those employes [sic] who meet the contractual requirements prior to its expiration.
Based on that analysis and conclusion, the arbitrator declared:
A prospective retiree who dies, or who retires and dies prior to the expiration of the labor Agreement is entitled to receive the benefits provided by the Company in 3.16 of the Health and Welfare Plan for the duration specified therein, whether or not the labor Agreement continues in effect.
A prospective retiree who retires prior to the expiration of the labor Agreement is entitled to receive the benefits rovided [sic] by the Company in 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 (including 3.16 by reference in 5.1(a)(1)) of the Health and Welfare Plan for the duration specified therein, whether or not the labor Agreement continues in effect. 1
Although the Company did not appeal the arbitrator's award, the district court nevertheless entered an order enforcing the award. Notice of appeal of the district court's final judgment was filed by the Company.
On appeal the Company urges: "(1) the arbitrator's award relates to employee benefits subject to ERISA and therefore must be subject to de novo review rather than the extremely limited review of labor arbitration awards allowed under federal labor law; (2) on de novo review the Arbitrator's award would not be upheld * * *."
The difficulty we have with the Company's argument concerning the arbitrator's award is that there is no indication in this record these claims were raised before the district court. The Company did not file a cross-claim seeking such relief but simply relied on a general denial of the class claim. In its opinion the district court stated "neither party raises any question as to the validity of the award, rather the question appears to be its scope." The Company argued that the arbitration award dealt only with the rights of employees who would retire after the date of the award and prior to the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement. The Company based this argument on the arbitrator's statement: "This arbitration case does not deal with the rights of retirees, but it does deal with the rights of current employes [sic] who will retire during the life of the current labor Agreement."
The Union and the class urged that the arbitrator's award covered the pre-September 1979, as well as all post-September 1979, retirees. The Union repeats their argument on appeal. The arbitrator clearly limited its award to those who retired after September 1979. The district court so found.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bidlack v. Wheelabrator Corp.
... ... No. 91-2378 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Seventh Circuit ... agreements between Wheelabrator and the union that represented employees at Wheelabrator's ... Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 724, 732, 105 S.Ct ... International Union, United Auto Workers v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476, 1479-80 (6th ... , Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Ass'n, Local 550, etc. v. American Airlines, Inc., 763 F.2d ... 150-A, United Food & Commercial Workers, etc. v. e Packing Co., 756 F.2d 66, 69-70 (8th Cir.1985) (inferring ... ...
-
John Morrell & Co. v. Local Union 304A of United Food and Commercial Workers, AFL-CIO
... ... Morrell operates a meat packing business and has plants at various locations, including ... See Local Union No. 150-A, United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union v. Dubuque ... ...
-
Coonley v. Fortis Benefit Ins. Co., C 95-3077-MWB.
... ... No. C 95-3077-MWB ... United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central ... Office in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and by local counsel Kasey Kincaid of Faegre & Benson in Des ... , except any (i) temporary or seasonal workers or (ii) member of Class II below ... Union Central Life Ins. Co., 94 F.3d 489, 491 (8th ... in its construction,'" quoting UFCW Local 150-A v. Dubuque Packing Co., 756 F.2d 66, 69 (8th ... ...
-
McPeek v. Beatrice Co.
... ... No. C 92-4017-MWB ... United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western ... Plaintiffs, all former union members and beneficiaries under the Plan, filed ... Plaintiffs were employed at Swift's meat packing facility in Sioux City, Iowa, and were union ... Workmen of North America or the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union ("the ... Commercial Workers International Union AFL-CIO, has been extended the following increased ... Local Union 23, 973 F.2d 206, 209 (3d Cir.1992). 12 ... 150-A, United Food and Commercial Workers Int'l Union FL-CIO v. Dubuque Packing, 756 F.2d 66, 69-70 (8th Cir.1985); see ... ...