FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 01/26/2015 9:37:12 AM PST by cotton1706
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with a company that amended a collective bargaining agreement to force retirees to pay toward healthcare costs, throwing out a lower-court ruling that favored the former employees who objected to the change.
On a unanimous vote, the nine-member court handed a win to M&G Polymers USA, a subsidiary of Italy-based chemical company Mossi & Ghisolfi International, by sending the case back for further proceedings in the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Nearly 500 plaintiffs from Ohio who had worked at the M&G polyester plant in Apple Grove, West Virginia, sued in 2006 when the company said retirees would be required to contribute to their healthcare costs.
The plaintiffs, backed by the United Steelworkers union, said the collective bargaining agreement guaranteed them health benefits without requiring them to contribute.
The plaintiffs won in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Ohio following a bench trial, and the judge imposed an injunction reinstating the original benefits. In an August 2013 ruling, the 6th Circuit upheld the district court decision.
The question on which M&G sought high court review was whether the 6th Circuit correctly made a presumption in favor of the retirees after finding the contract did not clearly state the duration of the benefits.
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing on behalf of the court, said the appeals court had not used the correct legal analysis.
Thomas wrote that "when a contract is silent as to the duration of retiree benefits, a court may not infer that he parties intended those benefits to vest for life."
The case is M&G Polymers USA v. Tackett, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 13-1010.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
“The Court may not infer” should be the motto of the judiciary.
One can dream.
Sure You Can Trust Government, Just Ask Any Indian
He is a retiree for the rest of his life, but SCOTUS said that that doesn’t mean the benefits last that long.
From the ruling, I think the party who should be sued is the union.
1) Was it actually a constitutional-based question or controversy?
2) If so, was the opinion anything close to constitutional-based reasoning?
Hard to imagine both being true - rarely is anymore.
Yup. All those wonderful “treaties” the pale faces broke.
there was a contract and the contract was poorly drawn
the union lawyer can now be sued for lawyerly negligence
Roger that. I have several who have inquired. I had a lady here inquire about a career for her son in the army. I told her the same, hell no. I tell every kid that simply “has” to go in the military, to go in for the 3 or 4 years needed to ONLY get the job they want for using outside the military. I tell them to stay away from combat arms. To do a job like mechanic on vehicles, helicopters, planes, computers, MP’s for law enforcement, medical training, etc., that sort of thing. SOMETHING they can sell to a civilian employer. I remember when I did my first three years, got out for almost two years, and went back in and did the other 17 needed to retire. When I got out that first time I went to a stinking Kmart store and put in for a job. The boss interviewed me and asked me what I did in the army. I told him I was a Nam vet, wounded, and was in the infantry. He was anti-war. Laughed for me getting shot and told me that he did not need to shoot anybody or defend the store, but if he did, he would call me. I used colorful french language to him to tell him where he could go and put his head, then walked out. Combat arms are worthless on the outside except for a security job.
Well, it at least warns you about jerky liberal bosses before you have to deal with their headaches.
Am I off base?
Guess it depends on your way of thinking. Would you expect 10 years down the road to take the car in again and expect the money you paid 10 years ago to now pay for another new engine.
yes, if i had a contract that said lifetime guarentee.
If you paid for that repair and were told for $50 more they will sell you a lifetime guarentee to cover all parts and labor-and you made the deal, then they changed it so you had to pay for the parts..how is that legal?
If the contract between the employer and the union was written to say that retirees get benefits, and the people involved are retirees for the rest of their lives, how is the benefit cut off date to be determined?
What can be reasonably inferred to have been the intent of the contractual parties when the contract was written? Was this case originally tried before a jury? If so, how did the jury rule?
With what is already known about the case, you may understand why some people will wish to sell their services in other parts of the world. Contracts in general may have more respect in certain non-USA venues. This would be even more important if the contract were between an individual and an employer.
I’m not an attorney.
My guess is that the contract wasn’t written as clearly as you’ve described it here, as it was probably written by an attorney.
The original juries decision, whatever it was has been overruled by the final juries decision, SCOTUS.
If I were one of those affected, I’d consider suit against the union, as they were the ones originally hired to represent my interests, and apparently did not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.