In the US Steel Union Retiree Benefit Changes suit, the former union leader, John Gray, alleges that his employer breached his 1995 Settlement Agreement addressing seniority rights and terms and conditions of employment. The company refused to give Gray a fair hearing for his grievances for eight years, and in November 2011 sent him a check for $30,000 in a settlement. This article explores the case and outlines the legal issues it raises.
Gray’s pension was recalculated to account for the $30,000 settlement
According to the filings in the case, U.S. Steel allegedly acted improperly when it denied Gray back pay in the $30,000 grievance settlement. The company had already settled the case in 2004 before Gray filed his lawsuit. His complaint alleges that the company violated the 1995 and 2004 Settlement Agreements.
Ultimately, U.S. Steel won the lawsuit. After Gray complained to the NLRB, the company recalculated his pension to reflect the $30,000 settlement. He was not given notice of the lawsuit. This decision re-calculated his pension by approximately 30 percent. His lawsuit has been categorized as retaliation and continues to be reviewed by the NLRB.
In addition to the lawsuit, the U.S. Steel Company allegedly violated the 1995 Settlement Agreement by denying Gray a fair hearing on his grievances. This is illegal, according to Gray, because U.S. Steel was required to provide a fair grievance process to its employees. This violation also violated the federal law governing ERISA.
Alcoa USA’s unilateral change to health insurance benefits violates the collective bargaining agreement
If you are an employee at Alcoa USA, you may be wondering whether Alcoa’s change to health insurance benefits violates your collective bargaining agreement. The new plan is based on the HRA, which is a health savings account and requires a higher contribution than the collective bargaining agreement requires. Alcoa USA is also arguing that the change does not violate your contract because the changes are not vested and the information it gave to you when you retired was ambiguous.
Alcoa argues that the named plaintiff does not have sufficient incentive to pursue the case, because she is the sole representative of the class. This is because Kaiser is also the only person representing the entire class and may have a conflict of interest with the other members of the class. Further, it argues that treating retirees and spouses as one class would result in inconsistent remedies for different groups.
General Motors’ decision to drop life insurance benefits violates ERISA
This case is one of the first to examine whether a company’s decision to drop life insurance benefits violates a retiree’s rights under ERISA. The plaintiffs argue that GM breached its fiduciary duty to employees by denying them the option to withdraw from their benefits. However, the Court finds that the company was not negligent in stating its reasons for dropping these benefits. The plaintiffs have raised a range of issues relating to their claims.
While General Motors acknowledges that its summary booklets contained the required summary plan description, the en banc majority finds that General Motors did not meet this requirement until 1977, so only their booklets after 1977 are classified as summary plan descriptions. This result is in stark contrast to General Motors’ characterization of its booklets as “summary plan descriptions.”
