Newspaper Guild of St. Louis, Local 36047 v. St. Louis Post Dispatch, LLC
641 F.3d 263
8th Cir.2011Background
- Post Dispatch and Guild are signatories to a 1994 CBA that provided ERISA welfare benefits to retirees, including lifetime premium payments for those with 10+ years of service.
- Article XVI of the 1994 Agreement reserved the employer’s right to modify or substitute plans while preserving lifetime coverage for retirees who qualify.
- The 1994 Agreement contains a broad arbitration clause allowing either party to arbitrate grievances alleging violations of the Agreement.
- In 2008, Post Dispatch unilaterally changed the retiree health plan to require retirees to pay 30% of premiums starting January 1, 2009.
- Guild filed a grievance asserting the 1994 Agreement required full premium payments for retirees for life; Post Dispatch denied, arguing the obligation ended with expiration of the agreement.
- The district court granted summary judgment compelling arbitration, but reserved whether the retirees’ right to full premiums vested under the 1994 Agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the retirees' right to fully paid premiums vest under the 1994 Agreement? | Guild argues benefits vested for life under the Agreement. | Post Dispatch contends vesting did not occur post-expiration. | Vesting must be decided first; arbitrability hinges on vesting. |
| Is a post-expiration grievance arbitrable if it concerns a vested or surviving right under the contract? | Guild asserts vested rights survive expiration. | Post Dispatch contends post-expiration issues fall outside the Agreement absent vesting. | Arbitrability depends on whether rights accrued or carried over post-expiration. |
| Should the district court decide vesting before addressing arbitrability when the contract is ambiguous and extrinsic evidence is involved? | Guild contends district court should resolve vesting issue first. | Post Dispatch contends arbitrability can be decided without resolving vesting. | Remand to district court to decide vesting in the first instance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (postexpiration grievance—vesting or survival limited by contract terms)
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 643 (1986) (arbitrability is a question for judicial determination)
- Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Intl. Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 501 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2007) (need to interpret contract terms to decide retiree benefits vesting)
- GKN Aerospace, N. Am., Inc. v. Intl. Fed'n of Bus., 431 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 2005) (arbitrability precedes merits; interpret arbitration clause)
- Dubuque Packing Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 756 F.2d 66 (8th Cir. 1985) (vested benefits may be inferred from contract language and bargaining history)
- John Morrell & Co. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 37 F.3d 1302 (8th Cir. 1994) (ambiguous language may require extrinsic context to determine vesting)