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.
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.