*1 A. BENCIVENGA and Adeline Columbo
Bencivenga, Appellants, The WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA AND
TEAMSTERS EMPLOYERS FUND, and the Trustees PENSION Thereof.
No. 84-3654. Appeals, States United Court Third Circuit. Argued March Decided June Rehearing Rehearing Banc July 3,1985.
Denied *2 significant bearing on claims future
of this kind. See notes 3 and 4. infra
I. working years Paper
After for Morris Company, Bencivenga A. Columbo retired age March at the on of 52. Under Pennslyvania the terms of the Western Employees he Teamsters Pension Plan eligible for an early would be retirement age pension when he reached he 55. When equivalent retired the actuarial for- normal mula used reduce payable age age at Larrimer, retirement argued, Dougherty, C. James Lee, Pa., to that received at retirement was “Vs Pittsburgh, appel- Larrimer & one for each percent month that the lants. Early precedes age Date six- Retirement Wick, Rich, Streiff, argued, J. Charles retired, Bencivenga had ty.” When he Pa., Streiff, Pittsburgh, appel- Flue & years more than maximum 25 of credit- lees. multiplier unit in effect ed service and the ALDISERT, Judge, Plan, his normal $22.00. Before Chief was STAPLETON*, would have been $550.00 Circuit SLOVITER § 4.4(b), per reprinted month. Plan Judges. Using percent the Vs of
app. at 32. one THE COURT time, OPINION OF Ben- in effect at that discount factor civenga anticipated ALDISERT, Judge. Chief per he pension of month when $440.00 appeal in this question decision age reached pension claimant from an adverse by a 26, 1979, however, the judgment in of a On November summary favor Plаn amended the Plan could trustees fund is whether the fund gradually the factor increase discount reduce the amount of retirement ben- percent for each month during period the date of to 7/io efits between App. sixty. participant retired before the time benefits early retirement and that the was done insure payable to an at 58. This become under would retiring prior paid equivalent equal the actuarial benefits equal in To to the normal were decide this normal be payable to those that would interpret of value question we must Bencivenga When Security normal retirement Employee Income Retirement applied pension, age 55 and (ERISA), seq., 1001 et and reached Act factor, trustees, using the new discount Treasury Depart- regulations of the two only per month. approved pension $319 the district court’s ment. We appealing trus unsuccessfully fund After of a could conclusion trustees decision, Bencivenga his wife violating the tees’ such benefits without reduce Adeline, designated to receive was therefore who provisions of affirm. Plan, joint and survivor benefits part, writing For the most we action, because, alleging the trustees’ filed this only, be sense will historical § 204(g). Both decision violated developed, Congress has now amеnd- later summary judgment. The sides moved for in manner that will ed the ERISA statute Delaware, sitting Judge argument Stapleton Court for the District time of oral *At the Court. designation. is now a member of this He States District of the United was Chief pellant court determined that argue district seems to that he can elect not protect affected were not to file document to contest an affidavit court supporting ERISA. found of facts summary judgment motion, actions should therefore evalu argue appeal trustees’ and then that his opponent’s “affidavit, ated under either “reasonableness” or subject to cross- *3 standard, capricious” “arbitrary by examination beneficiary, not should parties opportunity accepted both by offered “to be the court at face value.” discovery and file Appellant conduct affidavits” on Brief 41. simply This is Although the sup issue. fund filed 56(e), not the law. Rule Federal affidavits, plaintiff Procedure, did porting not. party resisting Rules Civil a summary judgment summary The court then entered judgment a may motion rest Bencivenga appeals.1 upon for the defendants. allegations mere or denials his pleading. Marshall, 517, Ness v. 660 F.2d II. (3d Cir.1981). motion, opposing 519 response specific “must set forth facts Bencivenga raises two in this contentions showing that genuine there is issue First, argues appeal. he that a material If respond, trial. he summary does not so exists, issue of fact because of sum which judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered mary judgment was inappropriate. Sec against him.” vernacular, you Id. In the ond, argues that he was defendant doggo” not “lie summary judg- judgment entitled to as a matter law proceedings court, in the district because retirement benefits af appeal on claim a defense on the facts. by protect fected the trustees’ actions are ed from reduction ERISA. On review hand, appellant On the other further contention, first we must decide complаins that the district court “has impermissibly whether the district court re articulated the basic material facts” fact; disputed solved a issue of material This, granted. motion was the second plena contention our review course, is necessary. In granting sum Co., ry. Goodman v. Mead Johnson 534 & judgment, mary the district court assumes 566, (3d Cir.1976), denied, F.2d cert. that all factual averments contained 1038, 732, 429 U.S. 97 S.Ct. 50 748 L.Ed.2d papers before it are true. Smith v. (1977). Saxbe, 729, (D.C.Cir.1977). 562 F.2d 733
III. Moreover, the district court was Appellant’s contention, first summary there faced with cross motions for genuine was issue judgment material fact that and we are satisfied with its con precluded summary judg- issuance ripe сlusion that the was matter for sum fund, worst, inment favor of the mary judgment.2 is at its now turn to mer We imprecise, best, unpersuasive. Ap- and at its. opinion Bencivengas In this necessarily justified will be re- other the losing or that singular ferred party to in the refer to them- waives ... determination wheth- selves in genuine their brief. er issues of material fact exist.” Indus., Inc., Rains v. Cascade 402 F.2d 2. The district court stated: (3d Moreover, Cir.1968). the standards summary grants judg- Where under which the sum- cross-motions for court or denies mary presented, judgment change essentially ment are each side con- do not virtue being tends that presented. there are no issues cross-motions of material faсt Daburlos point Newark, N.J., party. of view of that Commercial Ins. Co. party’s F.Supp. (E.D.Pa.1973). court must therefore consider each summary judgment separately. rule, general motion for aAs courts do not favor moving summary judg- Since summary disposition each side is of cases on their merits. ment, Nevertheless, case, each side bears the appropriate burden of establish- in an ing genuine disposition may a lack parties issues of material fact. save needless inherently contradictory Such expense do "not claims often considerable time and agreement rejected during constitute an that if one is otherwisе would At be incurred trial. commencing fits anat before normal
IV. if to determine the district In order granted summary judgment, court Generally, an individual’s “accrued early retirement decide whether
we must defined benefit” under a protected benefits are “accrued benefits” expressed to be in the form an annual plain We look first to lan ERISA. commencing at normal retirement § 204(g), ERISA guage of the statute. § 1054(g), counterpart, tax and its H.R.Rep. Cong., No. 93d 2d Sess. § 1012(d)(6), 411(d)(6), reprinted Cong. in 1974 U.S.Code & Ad. amending prohibit pension plan to reduce 4639, 4670, Legislative News histo- “accrued benefits.” The participant’s therefore, ry, supports language the literal § 3(23), as “thе term is defined ERISA of the Act. *4 as determined accrued benefit individual’s supports Case also conclusion law expressed and in the ... early retirement benefits are not ac- commencing an annual benefit at form of crued benefits under v. ERISA. Sutton age____” 29 Steel, Cir.1983), (4th 724 F.2d Weirton 406 § 1002(23). age” “Normal retirement parent company, Corp., National Steel in the later specified plan, or the date its sold Weirton Steel Division to a new years partic- 10 attaining 65 or company, Corp., Steel was Weirton § 1002(24). ipation plan. in the 29 U.S.C. employees. owned the Division’s Na- benefits,” Thus, in context of “accrued agreed responsibility tional to retain normal, specific is to reference ERISA’s normal retirement benefits accrued before early, than rather retirement.3 the sale. In addition to normal retirement legislative history also indicates ERISA’s provided employees National had Act not intended to assure the was early unfunded retirement benefits early expectations. sanctity retirement layoff. event of shutdown or The sales Report The House states: agreement it clear the sale made The term “accrued benefit” refers to payment early trigger would pension or retirement benefits is not Employees ment benefits. who would ancillаry apply sued, to certain intended to ben- eligible been retirement ____ require vesting To efits these alleging of the that denial seriously compli- ancillary benefits would ERISA. The Court benefits violated the administration and increase the held that Appeals cate for the Fourth Circuit plans primary ancillary whose function were an cost retirement benefits income____ Also, and that provide protected eliminated, altered, vesting to which the or even the accrued benefit could be (citing violating 410 is not include such items ERISA. Id. at apply rules without Shopmen v. right to receive Fentron Industries National as the value bene- minimum, partial disposition within its accrued benefits at retirement benefits case stage protection years beginning issues refine the after De- an earlier will Thus, summary Act, 31, final Equity resolution. remain cember 1984. Retirement judgment 98-397, is a tool when there is no 301(a)(2), useful Stat. 1450-51 Pub.L. No. 98 disagreement facts. over the critical See Pe However, (1984). ap- the amendment does Council, Lehigh Valley Dist. 676 F.2d terson 81, 1985, 1, plan years January ply before Cir.1982). (3d 84 history legislative infer- Act’s states that “no us, action both sides essential- In the before clarifica- made on the basis of this ence to be ly reflects that there are record prohibi- scope 1054(g) the [§ ] tion as to the genuine issues relative no factual provision.” effective date of the tion before the Therefore, legal question. we shall threshold 28, 575, Cong., reprint- S.Rep. 98th 2d Sess. No. question. proceed to consider that 2547, Cong. U.S.Code & Ad.News 1984 App. at 331-32. Congress has amended ERISA 3. We note that 1054(g), 204(g), include
578 Fund, (9th 674 F.2d Appellant argues Pension also that he has a com- Cir.1982)(past credits of service non-vested mon law contractual claim to the re- participants “ancillary” However, tirement whether such Semet, a claim canceled) exists is and Fine v. 699 F.2d determined the terms of plan. Cir.1983) (ERISA appellant (11th had does not not fulfilled claiming conditiоn for such a quire payment retirement — prior He, to reaching age therefore, right to such benefits must be found in has no valid contractual claim to benefits agreements)). individual other than plan specified those which the cases, i.e., and other Based on Sutton the time he reached 55.4 Culinary Hernandez v. Southern Nevada Trust, Pension & Bartenders 662 F.2d VI. Cir.1981) (9th (no vested only considerations, Were these our we receive retirement benefits before normal could analysis terminate our here. But age), and Petrella v. NL Indus complicating the problem, decision here is a tries, Inc., F.Supp. (D.N. presented court, to the district and not J.1982) (аll employees not entitled to urged in the primary briefing, but the sub- simply granted because some ject supplemental briefing argu- and oral sold), such retirement when division request. ment at our difficulty stems district court this case deter from the existence of Treasury Depart- two “weight authority mined that the is that *5 regulations, ment argu- one of which can early retirement benefits are not con ably support be said to the claimant’s con- sidered ‘accrued benefits’ under ERISA.” here; other, tention the fund’s conten-
tion. We must now make a
analy-
detailed
regulations.
V.
sis of these
Faced with such formidable authori
A.
ty, appellant attempts a flank attack on the
We take
beginning point
as our
ERISA
reasoning of these
argues
cases. He
§ 206(a)
provides
plan
that where a
his
to an
already
had
provides
payment
for the
of an
plan
vested under the
and therefore could
benefit,
employee
who satisfies
be reduced. But there
not be an
requirements
service
for such a benefit
end run
statutory concept
around the
separates
but
satisfy-
service before
“accrued
rights
benefits.” Whether
ing
age requirement,
upon
“is entitled
depends
“vested”
on whether
are “ac
satisfaction
age requirement
of such
to re-
crued benefits.” This is because under
ceive benefit not less than the benefit to
only
accrued benefits vest. 29
which he would be entitled at the normal
§ 1053(a). Appellant’s argument
age,
actuarially reduced un-
must at all times focus on whether the
der regulations prescribed by the Secre-
early retirement benefits are “accrued ben
§
tary
Treasury.”
1056(a)
29 U.S.C.
efits”;
ignore
requirement.
he cannot
(emphasis supplied).
this,
From
the Secre-
Supreme
As the
Court stated in Allesi v.
tary
specific
has
authority
promulgate
Inc.,
Raybestos-Manhattan,
451 U.S.
regulations concerning the actuarial reduc-
1895, 1900,
101 S.Ct.
B. the of present here: ena are factor; second, the of result the discount Secretary promulgated has also the application to the amount of benefits its regulation the following which conforms to Clearly adjustment of upward an the Act and can be received. legislative history the early factor will decrease exempt retirement benefits the discount read protection as accrued benefits under But amount paid. of benefits the the Act: paid participant retiring prior a benefits adjusted is general, term “accrued benefits” only pension retirement ben- guarantee
refers that his order to downward do Consequently, accrued efits. benefits during early retirement are benefits directly ancillary not include benefits that equal in value to those would benefits____ For to retirement related payable at the normal retirement been paragraph a subsidized purposes is increased The amount discounted provid- which is early retirement benefit prior to month the retires each account, taken into by a is not equivalence. age 60 to achieve actuarial determining except to the extent Thus, important here it is to understand under normal retirement benefit objective was equivalent actuarial plan____ It constant. not altered. remained § 1.411(a)-7(a)(l)(ii). 26 C.F.R. that the most accurate We believe reading Regulation cursory From a indi- regulations involved 1.411(d)-3(b), reading of two 1.411(a)-7(a)(l)(ii) and the amount excess of he great length cates that “examined at the effect of equivalent applied of normal actuarial retirement discount factor the finan- subsidy, stability a cial App. is and that this subsi- fund.” at 183. protected is He from reduc- found losses dized amount from this Regulation source had risen to $1.2 an accrued benefit. million and as were § 1.411(a)-7(a)(l)(ii) increasing. He states that recommended that a “subsi- early trustees increase the discount retirement a factor and dized benefit” opinion that in his “in protected pension increase Amend- benefit early ment 9 result in Also, would plan. regulations provide the fol- becoming actuarially equiv- benefit example lowing unprotected subsidy of an alent to the normal retirement benefit.” plan: though “Even the actuarial value Id. at 184. early of the could ex- ceed the value the benefit the normal We note that the Internal Revenue Ser- age, the normal retirement ben- vice has taken broad view effect of greater efit not include the value of would Regulation 1.411(d) 3(b) and appar- — retirement benefit because actu- ently conсluded that amendment caus- ignored.” arial 26 C.F.R. subsidies ing a change factor discount or meth- 1.411(a)-7(c)(6) Example (emphasis determining od of equivalence actuarial supplied). regula- Another instance reducing that has the effect the amount where tory ignored scheme “subsidies” are prohibited as temporary supple- is in the treatment of decrease accrued benefits. Rev.Rul. ments to retirees in advance of Social 81-12,1981 However, Cumm.Bull. 228. un- Security eligibility, or Security sup- “Social regulations, like authorized Revenue Rul- plements.” 1.411(a)-7(c)(4),(6) 26 C.F.R. ings, interpretive actions, do not have (3). then, follows, Example It that a the force of law and accept we need not provides higher pay- level of full theory. breadth of the IRS’s Baker v. ments for retirement when actuarial- Co., (3d Otis Elevator 609 F.2d ly compared to normal retirement Cir.1979). subsidy contains an actuarial We conclude that the most consist protected tirees that as an “accrued ent reading applicable ERISA and benefit.”5 regulations altering is that the discount Here, supports record the conclusion factor in computing used retire simply the amendment eliminated a ment so as to achieve bona fide subsidy. The Plan’s Trustees enacted the equivalence actuarial normal retire discount increased factor insure that impermissible benefit is not an *7 paid early benefits as a result of reduction of accrued benefits. So inter actually the were statistical or actuarial preted, 1.411(d) 3(b) Regulation is con — equivalent to those payable which would be gruent legislative the Act with and its his age. at the normal retirement In an affida- tory; any interpretation other would sub vit by appel- that was uncontradicted the ject regulation the to nullification as being lant, consultant, the Plan’s promulgated actuarial Frank in conflict with the underlying Stokes, prior that statutory stated to the amendment schemе. 575, 28, Equity although S.Rep. Cong.,
5. The reprint- Retirement Act No. 98th 2d Sess. by retroactively its terms effective as to this Cong. ed in 1984 U.S.Code & Ad.News Plan, recognizes amendment of the Teamsters premised 1984 Act is The thus on the upon and builds ally between distinction actuari- theory early may that be early reduced retirement benefits and those benefits," "accrued and also on the view that a equivalence, that are excess of in actuarial subsidy may benefit be reduced circumstanc- benefits, choosing to treat subsidized less favor- impermissible es that would be for an ably to a subsidized benefit. The Sen- already actuarially that Report subsidy" ate defines a "benefit as “the equivalent to the normal retirement benefit at excess value of a benefit over the actuari- normal retirement equivalent al of the normal retirement benefit." an retirement benefit is not court will be Since judgment of the district The ERISA, benefit under it an accrued follows affirmed. challenged amendment does not that 204(g) violate of that statute. Section STAPLETON, concurring. Judge, Circuit by remaining question presented this challenged amend- I conclude that appeal is the alteration of Mr. whether Bencivenga’s neither Mr. ment violates Bencivenga’s early retirement rights nor his under rights under ERISA rights breached his contract Pennsylvania Teamsters Western employees Plan. This Court has held that separate- Employers Pension Plan. I write employer may bargain for and their bene by a conclusion I reach this ly because required satisfy ERI beyond fits those by col- my that different from taken route that, so, employees SA and when do leagues. may rights enforce their to those benefits Murphy Heppen in the federal courts. persuasively As Chief Aldisert Co., (3d Cir.1980), stall F.2d cert. demonstrated, legis- its the text denied, 459 U.S. 102 S.Ct. construing history, and the case law lative (1982). I, accordingly, turn to L.Ed.2d support proposition all an it of whether Plan conferred the issue “accrued bene- retirement benefit is an Bencivenga protection against Mr. by directly protected reduction fit” any in the of his reduction § 1054(g). 204(g). 29 U.S.C. Section I conclude that it does benefit. Treasury Regulation As I read not. (1977), 1.411(d)-3(b) it not conflict does stipulates Section 10.4 of the Plan expressed intention clearly may “provisions Plan be of ... [the] understanding Congress. key any amended, Agree- provided in the Trust regulation present context of this ment, any instrument at time an changes in ac- recognition of fact that writing Trustees.” Sec- executed determining early tuarial factors provides Agreement of the Trust tion 10.7 exam- are mentioned as one ment benefits аny “Plan amended at time changes may indirectly affect ple of writing iii executed by an instrument If an participant. the accrued benefit of Trustees, however, in no provided, an were retirement benefit Pension Fund be used event shall the benefit, in an factor change actuarial purposes purpose other than other obvi- that benefit would used determine Agreement and in ... Trust set forth [the] reason, I ously directly. it For this affect Plan, pay- purposes of and for the the ... the last likely much more think it expenses incurred ing necessary situa- regulation refers to sentence of Fund.” The of the Pension administration which, partic- terms tions further contain no governing documents plan, change ular right of Trustees qualifications on the ad- has an benefit formula indirect the Plan.2 to amend to be received verse effect Bencivenga Mr. reads Article III age and on the accrual which would Plan foreclose amendments rights therein.1 *8 adversely indirectly may effect 3(22), ment and retire- "the term ‘normal 1. Under Section greater of the means the "accrued benefits.” ment benefit’ plan, or benefit under the plan commencing the retire- at normal under the require provide does not 2. ERISA 1002(22). Sec- age." 29 U.S.C. against protection amend- of accrued benеfits "ac- of minimum rate of accrual tion the Indeed, which reduce ac- amendments ment. may "nor- be a function of the crued benefits" approved permissible if are crued benefits plan. 29 mal retirement benefit" 1054(g) Secretary. and §§ any plan in which a formula U.S.C. 1054. In 1082(c)(8). re- the "normal benefits” includes for "accrued benefit", a reduction in tirement Service, a reduction amount of are of Future may occasion Credited view, In his that Arti- tire age the attainment of right participant characterizes the of a fifty-five cle and shall to be entitled receive position Bencivenga’s to an pension in Mr. under this Pension Plan. аas “nonforfeitable” or retirement benefit 4-4 n Section Amount Pension. of and right subject this means “vested” (a) Normal Pension The Benefit: change. elimination Section 3.2 and monthly amount of Normal Pension III, prior challenged of Article 3.3 granted retiring Participant eligible amendment, provided as follows: provisions such benefit under the of Sec- A Eligibility. Section 3.2 Partici- 4.2, equal product (i) tion shall of right pant will have a to a nonforfeitable multiplier” “unit determined in accord- benefit, pension provided as in Article IV Appendix (ii) ance with A and the Credit- subject required to the conditions Service, ed both factors to be determined therein, completed (10) if he has ten as of the Normal Retirement Pension Participation Years of since his last beginning 4.5(a). date defined in Section Date. Break Service (b) Early Pension Benefit: 3.3. Amount Section Pension. of monthly Early grant- amount Pension (a) Notwithstanding anything in Sec- a retiring Participant eligible for such contrary, monthly 3.2 benefit under the of Section amount of Normal Vested Pension 4.3, equal (i) product shall commencing at Benefit the date which multiplier” (ii) “unit the Credited Participant’s would have been the Nor- period of Participant, Service such both if Age mal Retirement he had not in- factors to be determined as the Early Serviсe, equal curred a Break shall be beginning Retirement Pension date de- (i) product multiplier” the “unit 4.5(b), fined in product Section with such (ii) specified Appendix A and (V3) (1) to be reduced one-third of one Service, Participant’s Credited both percent each Early month that the factors to be determined as of his Termi- precedes Date age sixty. Retirement nation Date. finds Chief Aldisert Mr. Benciven- (b) monthly Early ga’s argument unpersuasive Article III be- Vested equal Pension Benefit shall cause amendment came before Mr. monthly amount of the Normal Vested Bencivenga attained the be- (Vs) Pension Benefit reduced one-third actually pension came entitled to receive (1) percent for each month that the view, payments. Bencivenga’s In his Mr. precedes age sixty. retirement date right did not become “nonforfeitable” un- through 4.2 Sections 4.4 of the refer- der Article III met Plan until he provided enced part Article IV as fol- final “condition” of entitlement under Arti- lows: “pension cle IV. I benefit” Section Conditions Normal 4-2. 3.2 which Section confers a “nonforfeit- Any Participant Retirement right” following years partic- able ten Benefit. who attains his Normal Age, Retirement ipation subject to the conditions found in 4.1(a) as defined Section of this Pen- however, agreе, IV. I Article cannot Plan, completed sion ten pension to such benefit does not Years of Participation since his last become “nonforfeitable” within the mean- Date, Break in Service retire and ing 3.2 of Section until a attains shall be entitled to receive a un- pension payments when com- der this Pension Plan. First, I mence. think it fair to assume that Early Section phrase right” pen- Conditions “nonforfeitable 4-3. Any Participant plan governed Pension who sion ERISA is used as a Benefit. (15)years has at way least fifteen Credited term art in the same it is used in *9 Service, and, ERISA, in years of which at least the statute as used nonfor- five
583 construed, the acquired before one be- the Plan as “non- rights are feitable payment of a right to immediate of this comes entitled forfeitable” character means 3(19), 29 U.S.C. pension benefit. Section could not that the amount of benefit right 1002(19), a defines “nonforfeitable” by reduced amendment. legally including an unconditional as interpretation, As a matter of contract I benefit”, right to a enforceable “deferred perceive concluding no for that basis benefit, and as an “immediate” as well to provisions of X of amendment Article 203(a)(3)(A),provides “right that a Section pursuant apply, Plan do not to their literal emplоy- an accrued benefit derived to terms, III provisions to the Article as as shall not be treated er contributions segments well to all other Plan. plan provides solely forfeitable because public poli- held While some courts have payable it is if the that cy pension grounds that vested dies.” U.S.C. pursuant cannot be altered to a reserved Second, purpose of the con- at least amendment, right the public policy right” cepts of a Section “nonforfeitable governs expressed which here is that Bene- Pension 3.2 and a “Normal Vested 402(b) Act, of that ERISA. Section Pension Benefit” “Early and an Vested fit” § 1102(b),requires “[e]very that em- provide protection for 3.3 is to Section ployee provide shall ... change jobs off or be- those who are laid procedure amending plan____” such retirement is attaining fore an at which ability adjust thus afforded to option.3 The of the normal an amounts limited, however, changed circumstances tied, pension benefits are “vested” 204(g) and other Section example, participant’s “Termina- power expressly restrict use of the Date”, is defined as phrase which right well as amendment4 as Participant date termi- “the parties negotiate limitations on that Employment his nates service Covered power. this Court to alter It not for death, other than disabil- reason public thus struck name balance purpose If is a ity or retirement.” this policy. 3.3, it could have been Sections 3.2 right nor- to an or intended that pension become
mal benefit would partici- until a or “vested” “nonforfeitable” ages respec- pant 55 and reached tively. Bencivenga’s Mr.
I thus conclude that right to an meaning was “nonforfeitable” within adopted trustees Article III when the The question the Plan. Amendment 9 to whether, under then becomes for decision partic- amount of his benefit at summary distributed amount less than the 3. The of the Plan explanation fоllowing age actuarily ipants vesting: reduced contains undisput- receipt of flect pen- "Vesting" show receive future ed facts of record in case is the normal, subject (early challenged to meet- sion benefit ing did not have this effect. amendment benefits) be, if for these judge suggested, other conditions trial also as the It you ERISA, the Fund. You become vested leave to utiliza- Trustees are limited completing your pension after power of amendment "reason- tion of Participation. Years of "non-arbitrary” See manner. able” and 1104(a). judge, the trial I U.S.C. however, notes, example, For as Chief Aldisert undisputed facts record 1056(a), 206(a) of 29 U.S.C. § Section met these that the Trustees stan- demonstrate which reduced would foreclose an amendment dards. Bencivenga’s early benefit to Mr.