Roth v. City of Glendale
| Decision Date | 23 February 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-3467,97-3467 |
| Citation | 224 Wis.2d 800,593 N.W.2d 62 |
| Parties | , 160 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2677, 161 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2550 Rita ROTH, Delores Adair, Gary Budzinski, John Chelig, June LoCoco, George Farkus, Daryl R. Grober, Vera Gross, Andrew Huppert, Donald L. Jackson, Ronald Jackson, Harry Kalupa, DuWayne Kasal, Nona Koellner, Al Ohrmund, Edward Paul, Cliff Peak, Allen Reininger, Mildred Sievers, Fred Skerpea, Elain Stechauner, Tony Stechauner, Caroline Stelzel, Morene Tomasello, Robert Yourich and John Verhulst, Plaintiffs-Appellants, d v. CITY OF GLENDALE, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Alvin R. Ugent of Podell, Ugent, Haney & Delery, S.C., of Milwaukee.
On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Maria K. Myers of Davis & Kuelthau, S.C., of Milwaukee.
Before WEDEMEYER, P.J., FINE and CURLEY, JJ.
Appellants, retired employees of the City of Glendale (retirees), appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the respondent, the City of Glendale (City). The retirees, in this suit claiming that the City violated their contractual rights, argue that the order was improper because the health care provisions found in the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in effect at the time of their respective retirements were "clear and unambiguous and should be enforced" in their favor. We conclude that because: the health care provisions found in the CBAs were in effect only for the duration of each contract; the CBAs were silent as to vesting of the health care provisions; and the retirees cannot point to any provisions that indicate an intention to grant lifetime health care benefits to retirees, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the City.
All but four of the retirees involved in this litigation were members of a bargaining unit represented by AFSCME, AFL-CIO. 1 The retirees were covered by a series of CBAs spanning the years 1972-1997. The provisions at issue are those requiring the City to pay a significant portion of the retirees' health insurance benefits. From 1972 to 1992, the wording of the CBAs remained substantially unchanged with regard to the payment of health care benefits: 2
Any employee who retires from the City, shall be eligible for Blue Cross-Blue Shield Medicare Extended--365 days, when such retiree attains age sixty-five (65), with the City paying the entire premium for single or family coverage where applicable.
Over the years, there were several minor provision changes, including changes in the health insurance carrier and changes in the cost paid by retirees. However, in 1979, a major change was added, which remained until 1989, which provided that the employee contribution of the health insurance premium would remain a negotiable item upon the expiration of that particular agreement. From 1972 to 1989, the CBAs provision dealing with health insurance stated that in order for a retiree to be eligible for benefits, the retiree must have had ten years of service with the City. In 1989, the CBA provision defining who was eligible for health insurance coverage as a retiree was modified to require fifteen years of service. As noted, through 1992, the various CBAs required the City to pay the entire premium for health care benefits for retirees. In 1992, that provision was re-negotiated to read:
Upon retirement, the City agrees to pay up to 105% of the lowest cost health insurance plan available in the City's service area (Milwaukee County) under the State Health Plan for family or single coverage, whichever is applicable until the employee reaches age 65. The retired employee shall pay the difference, if any, between the actual cost of the insurance coverage and the amount paid by the City.
The union negotiated this change with the City on the employees' behalf. Although none of the retirees was a party to these negotiations changing the formula for health care coverage, each was notified of the change by letter.
After this change was enacted, the retirees brought suit against the City, claiming they had a vested interest in the retirement benefits that were established under the various CBAs in operation when they each retired and that the above change was being improperly applied to them. The retirees moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City, relying on the rule of law found in Senn v. United Dominion Indus., Inc., 951 F.2d 806 (7th Cir.1992), which states that retirees have no vested right to benefits beyond the expiration of the benefit agreement where the agreement does not specifically provide otherwise.
Summary judgment is used to determine whether there are any disputed facts that require a trial, and, if not, whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Our review of a trial court's grant or denial of summary judgment is de novo. Green Spring Farms v. Kersten, 136 Wis.2d 304, 315-16, 401 N.W.2d 816, 820 (1987). We use the same summary judgment methodology as the trial court. Id. That methodology has been described in many cases, see e.g., Grams v. Boss, 97 Wis.2d 332, 338, 294 N.W.2d 473, 476-77 (1980), and need not be repeated here. Summary judgment must be granted if the evidentiary material demonstrates "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." RULE 802.08(2), STATS.
The retirees first contend that because retirees are not part of the current bargaining unit, and the labor union does not represent retired persons, see Rossetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., 128 F.3d 538 (7th Cir.1997), the trial court erred in its finding that the City of Glendale could lawfully negotiate with the union for a change in retiree benefits. We disagree.
Rossetto stands for the proposition that a union has no duty to represent retirees, but that the retirees are free to make the union their agent if they so choose. Rossetto, 128 F.3d at 540. The appellants do not dispute that this is the rule of law found in the case, but they argue that since they did not choose to have the union represent them, the union improperly represented them. We find their argument flawed because their position assumes that the retirees have a right to be represented in the negotiation of the CBAs after their retirement. There is, however, no requirement in Wisconsin that retired employees be represented in collective bargaining negotiations between their former employers and the present employees. Bence v. City of Milwaukee, 107 Wis.2d 469, 490, 320 N.W.2d 199, 209 (1982) ().
Here the retirees did not affirmatively agree to have the union represent them, but they accepted the terms of other CBAs negotiated by the union after their retirement, and this acceptance implied that they consented to have the union negotiate on their behalf. Thus, we conclude that the retirees implicitly agreed to allow the union to represent them, and the trial court's finding that the City could properly negotiate changes in retiree benefits with the union was correct, both because the retirees were not entitled to representation in such negotiations and, in any event, the union was given the implicit authority to represent the retirees by their acceptance of such previous negotiation.
Next, the retirees assert that they are entitled to the health care benefits in effect at the time each retiree (then in employee status) completed the required fifteen years of service because the health care benefits vested at that time. They rely on Schlosser v. Allis-Chalmers Corp., 86 Wis.2d 226, 271 N.W.2d 879 (1978), to support this contention. In Schlosser, a dispute arose between Allis-Chalmers and retired non-union employees. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld a grant of summary judgment to the retirees, determining that Allis-Chalmers was liable to the plaintiffs for breach of contract for failing to provide free life insurance benefits to retirees over age sixty-five. See id. at 230-31, 271 N.W.2d at 881-82. We conclude that the factual distinctions between Schlosser and the current case are fatal to the appellants' argument.
In Schlosser, the retirees, who were not union employees, derived their benefits from their employment contract with Allis-Chalmers which guaranteed free life insurance for retirees. See id. Their contracts, unlike CBAs, were not subject to recurrent negotiation, and had no expiration date. See id. By contrast, the retirees in the present case, who were, for the most part, union members, operated under various CBAs that contained provisions that did change over the years. Further, each CBA expired after a limited amount of time, in most cases, two years. A review of the CBAs reveals that none of them specifically provided continuation of health care benefits beyond the term of the agreement. In fact, for a significant period of time, the CBAs specifically provided that the health insurance premium paid by the retirees was a negotiable item beyond the expiration of the agreement. Thus, Schlosser can be distinguished from the facts presented here because Schlosser involved a single non-expiring contract with non-union employees which specifically provided continuation of benefits, while this case involves continuously evolving CBAs negotiated by a union, principally for the benefit of union members, with expiring dates which contained no language allowing for continuation of health care benefits beyond the life of the agreement. Further, some...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Roth v. City of Glendale, 97-3467.
-
Berquist and Thompson v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co.
... ... App. 1981) ... ¶8. American Family argues that Roth v. City of Glendale, 224 Wis.2d 800, 593 N.W.2d 62 (Ct. App. 1999), compels a different result ... ...