THE Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Monday, Jan. 26, that ambiguous language in union contracts should not automatically be interpreted in favor of workers.
The case involved a chemical company, M&G Polymers USA, a subsidiary of Italy-based Mossi & Ghisolfi International, where contracts from the 1990s provided healthcare benefits to retirees under the company’s pension. About 500 plaintiffs from Ohio who worked at the company’s plant in Apple Grove, W. Va. filed suit when it began requesting retiree contributions in 2006.
“When a contract is silent as to the duration of retiree benefits, a court may not infer that the parties intended those benefits to vest for life,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.
The Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2013, saying it was “unlikely that [the union] would agree” to such a deal “if the company could unilaterally change the level of contribution,” according to The Wall Street Journal.
“The Supreme Court’s decision sends a strong message that restores a level playing field in benefits litigation nationwide,” said Allyson Ho, the attorney for M&G Polymers, according to The Wall Street Journal.
When the case was argued in November, some justices wondered why the duration of the health benefits was not clearly outlined.
“Both sides knew it was left unaddressed, so, you know, whoever loses deserves to lose for casting this upon us when it could have been said very clearly in the contract,” Justice Antonin Scalia said. “Such an important feature. So I hope we’ll get it right, but, you know, I can’t feel bad about it.
The high court’s opinion leans toward M&G’s position on the contract, but it sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit to reconsider the issues “under the correct legal principles.”
Although the four liberal justices voted alongside Justice Thomas, they provided a separate opinion suggesting the plaintiffs had a case that could win.
“No rule requires ‘clear and express’ language in order to show that parties intended health care benefits to vest,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Joseph Stuligross of the United Steelworkers union and a lawyer who represented the retirees said he sees an opportunity to reclaim retiree health benefits.
“We look forward to returning to court to show that the suggestion that the parties only intended benefits to last for a couple of years fails to comport with the parties’ intent,” he said.
(With reports from Reuters, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and USA Today)
(www.asianjournal.com)
(LA Midweek January 28-30, 2015 Sec. A pg.5)
