Retiree Benefits: Does an Employer's Obligation to Pay Ever End?

Zielinski v. Pabst Brewing Company, Inc., 463 F.3d 615 (7th Cir. 2006).

Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) (2000).

Employment Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (1974).

For example, see Inter-Modal Rail Employees v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 520 U.S. 510 (1997).

For example, see Vallone v. CNA Financial Corp., 375 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2004).

Barnett v. Ameren Corporation, 436 F.3d 830, 832-833 (7th Cir. 2006).

For example, see Bidlackv. Wheelabrator, 993 F.2d 603, 607 (1993); Vallone v. CNA Financial Corp., 375 F.3d 633 (7th Cir. 2004).

See generally the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (1974).

James v. Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corp., 305 F.3d 439 (6th Cir. 2002).

See Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1104(a)(1) (1974).

Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers, Local 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co., 404 U.S. 157, 168-172 (1971).

Crown Cork & Seal Co., Inc., v. Int'l Assoc. of Machinist and Aerospace Workers , 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69883 at *2 (D. Neb. Sept. 25, 2006) (referring, in part, to its Aug. 26, 2005, order); Int'l Assoc. of Machinist and Aerospace Workers v. Goodrich Corp. , 410 F.3d 204, 212 (5th Cir. 2005); Rosetto v. Pabst Brewing Co., Inc. , 128 F.3d 538, 540-541 (7th Cir. 1997); The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company v. Utility Workers Union of America , 440 F.3d 809, 815 (6th Cir. 2006); United Steelworkers of America v. Canron, Inc. , 580 F.2d 77, 80-81 (3d Cir. 1978); United Steelworkers of America v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. , 474 F.3d 271, 282 (6th Cir. 2007). But see Schweizer Aircraft Corp. v. United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers , 29 F.3d 83, 87 (2d Cir. 1994) (expressing doubt about whether the union has standing to assert the rights of retirees without deciding the issue). The Canron court found the union had standing to represent the retirees if the collective bargaining agreement covered the issue of retiree benefits without discussing whether consent of the retirees was required to compel arbitration on their behalf (see 580 F.2d at 81). The court in Rosetto addressed only the consent condition and did not specifically address whether the parties' grievance procedure had to cover a grievance over modifications to retiree benefits plans (see generally 128 F.3d 538). Based on the facts of the case and the logic of the Rosetto court's decision, an inference can be made that the issue must be covered by grievance procedure.

Kerns v. Caterpillar, Inc., M.D. Tenn., No. 3:06-CV-01113 third-party complaint filed July 25, 2007; Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc., M.D. Tenn., No. 3:06-CV-00235, motion for leave to file complaint filed July 25, 2007.