Norman VanPamel v. TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc.
723 F.3d 664
6th Cir.2013Background
- TRW and Local 471 negotiated a 1993 CBA that provided retiree healthcare benefits (including prescription drug coverage) and was set to expire Dec. 1, 1996.
- A November 20, 1996 Termination Agreement extended and modified the 1993 CBA through plant closure and included a broad arbitration clause covering any alleged violation of the CBA or Termination Agreement.
- Plaintiffs Van Pamel and Slaght retired after the Termination Agreement became effective (Dec. 1, 1997 and Feb. 1, 1998, respectively).
- In Jan. 2011 TRW terminated prescription drug coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees and replaced it with HRA contributions; Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract (LMRA §301) and ERISA benefits (29 U.S.C. §1132(a)(1)(B)).
- TRW moved to compel arbitration under the Termination Agreement; the district court granted the motion and Plaintiffs appealed only for the two named retirees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retirees can be compelled to arbitrate disputes over vested retiree healthcare benefits | Yard-Man and related authority mean retirees cannot be forced into arbitration | Broad arbitration clause in Termination Agreement governs retiree disputes; presumption favors arbitration | Court: Arbitrable as to named retirees; arbitration clause applies |
| Whether ERISA claims must be expressly listed to be arbitrable | Penn Plaza requires explicit listing of statutory claims (so ERISA claims not arbitrable here) | ERISA claims here derive from CBA rights and thus fall within arbitration clause without explicit ERISA listing | Court: ERISA claims are arbitrable because they stem from the CBA/Termination Agreement |
| Whether union-negotiated Termination Agreement can bind retirees who were not represented by the union post-retirement | Retirees have independent rights to pursue benefits and union cannot bind them to arbitration absent consent | Retirees here retired after Termination Agreement and thus took benefits under the modified agreement | Court: Retirees who retired after Termination Agreement are bound to arbitrate; independent-retiree arguments do not avoid arbitration |
| Whether the 1993 CBA controls independently of the 1996 Termination Agreement for these retirees | Plaintiffs say their rights vested under 1993 CBA before the Termination Agreement modifications should not apply | The Termination Agreement modified and controlled the 1993 CBA for retirees who retired after its effective date | Court: Plaintiffs retired after the Termination Agreement and therefore their rights are governed by the modified CBA, including arbitration |
Key Cases Cited
- AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643 (presumption of arbitrability and allocation principles)
- UAW v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir.) (retirees may settle benefits directly with employer; does not decide arbitration enforcement)
- Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Utility Workers Union Local 270, 440 F.3d 809 (6th Cir.) (presumption of arbitrability applies to retiree benefits absent clear exclusion)
- Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (statutory discrimination claims may be compelled to arbitration if collective bargaining agreement clearly and unmistakably requires it)
- Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36 (distinguishes statutory claims not arising from CBA rights)