*1 v Stroh 1995] DROUILLARDv STROH BREWERY COMPANY
RISS v STROH BREWERY COMPANY 96422, (Calendar 5). Argued 11, Docket January Nos. 96423. No. July Decided 1995. Paul compensation Drouillard was injuries awarded worker’s for during sustained employment the course of his with the Stroh Brewery Company. As a result of Stroh’s decision to close its
brewery permanently lay employees, and to liqui- off all pension plan paid dated its lump and Drouillard a sum. There- after, hearing granted open a referee award to continue and held that medical and social secu- rity coordinated, benefits could be but not the Compensation Board, Appeal The Worker’s reversed. The Court Appeals, P.J., Marilyn of Taylor, and Brennan and Kelly, JJ., affirmed, holding that coordination must continue to cover (Docket the full being after-tax amount of the received 134002). plaintiff appeals. No. The Gerald Riss was injuries awarded worker’s during sustained employment the course of his with the Stroh Brewery Company. hearing A referee allowed coordination of benefits, benefits, sickness and unemployment accident and lump-sum pension Compensation Appeal benefits. The Worker’s although pension Board found that funds were set aside for retirement, retire, because Riss did not but was terminated plant, when payments Stroh closed the were severance involuntarily received, purview and not within the of Appeals, Taylor, P.J., coordination of benefits. The Court of Marilyn Kelly, JJ., reversed, and finding and that Brennan lump-sum payment (Docket to coordination No. 141039). plaintiff appeals. The opinion by In an joined by Chief Justice Brickley, Justices Supreme Levin, Boyle, Riley, Weaver, Court held: 17.237(354)(l)(d) 418.354(l)(d); MCL preclude does not required accept coordination where an is pension benefits. 1. loosely Worker’s is one unit in a connected system wage-loss protection unemployment that also includes compensation, security old-age, disability, social and survivors Mich children, general dependent to families aid portion employees assistance, designed to restore disability, physical major causes: wages of three lost because operative age. fact is crucial unemployment, old wage merely loss; dictates loss wage the cause *2 legisla- legislation applicable. most social category Because of fragments, implemented Michigan in unrelated was tion in of benefits. in an accumulation resulted to coordinate failure unemploy- coordination, employee could collect both an Before time. compensation at the same benefits worker’s ment and 17.237(354) compen- 418.354; the worker’s amended MSA MCL wage-loss benefits provide the coordination of sation act to maintaining payments, duplicate wage-loss while prevent to wage-loss benefits. suitable 17.237(354)(l)(d), 418.354(l)(d); pension MSA MCL 2. Under While, subject stat- ordinarily to coordination. are benefits reading only exceptions, would provides a forced ute itself 354(12) case subsection permit that in this the conclusion conjunction the rest of the precludes Read coordination. 354(12) only statute, to was intended subsection coordination encourage might permit any or 354 itself inference void security or еarly application employers for social to coerce compensation. by withholding It was pension worker’s benefits employee an is all cases in which to to not intended accept early Such compelled retirement benefits. required or purposes the coordina- application twin of would defeat the an duplicative wage-loss benefits provision: elimination of tion wage-loss payment. maintaining of a suitable level while hearing further referees for and remanded Affirmed proceedings. dissenting, joined by Justice Cavanagh, Justice cases, of these subsection the circumstances stated that under 354(12) prohibits Disability Compensation Act of the Worker’s plaintiffs’ pension worker’s benefits with of the coordination 354(12) explicitly bars com- compensation benefits. Subsection early pension payout. pelling an an to take allows an act 354 of the worker’s Section compensation by employer the amount of worker’s to reduce paid by employment the em- benefits with other coordination ordinarily ployer. are to coordination. benefits Pension designed protect However, specifically subsection wage-loss and to employee’s in future benefits interest an coordinating prohibit worker’s an from accept compelled an where an payout. pension case, plaintiffs not informed either were In this v Stroh 1995] Opinion op the Court leaving money option operated in trust was an or under the assumption that monies left in trust would not accumulate plaintiffs lump-sum interest. While the were not forced to take payments given option leaving and were their accumu- fund, pension lated monies in the such a choice would have any money been irrational because not received would not have statute, purposes plaintiffs accumulated interest. For compelled accept early payout 354(12) expressly prohibits. which subsection (1993) 67; App
199 Mich
Brickley, C.J. issue in appeal is the coordination and early pursuant 418.354; to MCL 17.237(354). particular, plaintiffs contend that *3 were they compelled to accept early payment of their retirement benefits and are therefore exempt from coordination of these benefits under MCL 418.354(l)(d); 17.237(354)(l)(d). We hold that plaintiffs’ interpretation of this statutory provision is erroneous and that MCL 418.354(l)(d); MSA 17.237(354)(l)(d) does not preclude coordination where required to accept early pension benefits. We therefore affirm the disposi- tion of these . cases the Court of Appeals and remand them to the hearing referees for further proceedings consistent with opinion.
i 8, 1985, On February Stroh Brewery Company announced its plan to close its brewery and to permanently lay off all brewery employees effec- tive December 1985. As a result of plant Mich op Opinion the Court pension plan liquidated closing, its pension paid employees Plaintiff its and Riss, age fifty-three time, received at lump Drouillard, Plaintiff $64,505.13 in sum. lump age fifty-four, $52,748.03 in a received then sum. plan liquidation announced,
At the time thе pension plan for the administrator the contract meetings explain the effect fund conducted employees liquidation. classes of Different the invited to (salaried, hourly, meetings able prepared pen- employees), and defendant disabled employees. applications for all sion distribution Riss not attend pension meetings; did of these attended one meetings received his and instead mail. information distribution plan the contract adminis- At these assemblies including gave employees forms, all several trator provided the form election form. This a benefit employees regarding pen- their with two choices employees their First, could have sion benefits. pension trust, then in a which would monies held annuity until to an insurance transferred be employ- employee requested Second, distribution. receipt of their could take ees either single lump-sum payment in the form of a retirement ac- into an individual or rolled over count. argument significant plaintiffs’ It is they it would be in their best were told that option. rejеct the trust interests to plan testified contract administrator Defendant’s they employees if instructed Stroh’s that he it in the trust would monies left their wise to therefore it was not no interest and earn *4 disputed money It in the trust. leave the employees plan told the administrator whether leaving money option they in had persons However, he did advise trust. Brewery Co Drouillard v Stroh 1995] Opinion op the Court on their questions payouts about the effect of legal seek compensation worker’s should counsel. began working Drouillard for Stroh’s as
Paul 4, point on June 1956. At some general laborer 1970’s, Drouillard during the late 1960’s or He occasionally his back while at work. injured this and he sometimes missed aggravated injury, 19, 1985, Drouil- February work as a result. On lard and fell on oil and sustained slipped allegedly neck, shoulder, back, and injuries right to his Drouillard never returned system. musculoskeletal to work after this accident.
Drouillard received worker’s bene- 20, fits from defendant from 1985 until February 26, June 1985. filed a petition continuing He 2, on 1985. July On 20, 1985, lump- November Drouillard received the $52,748.03 sum from the payment trust March, 1986, fund. magistrate found that aggravation had sustained an of his preexisting degenerative arthritic condition and granted open award of worker’s magistrate benefits. The held that Stroh could coordinate Drouillard’s security medical social provided but held that Stroh insufficient proof to allow coordination of benefits. The Compensation Worker’s Board Appeal submitted an order in reversing magistrate regard, stating that the worker’s compensation payments coordination accordance with 354(l)(d) 354(13). §§
Gerald
for the Stroh
began
Riss
work
2,
Company
April
During
employ-
on
1956.
his
back, right
ment he sustained
to his
shoul-
injuries
der,
1957, 1965,
injured
wrist. Riss
his back
required
and 1975. In
his injuries
surgery,
work,
returning
and he missed six months of
*5
449 Opinion op the Court
light-duty
injured
1973,
In
Riss
restricted
his
work.
required surgery;
shoulder, which also
how-
1973,
ever,
and
In
he did not miss work at that time.
again
injuries
1982,
his
in
Riss sustained
injury
1985,
wrist. From 1982 to
became
progressively
However, he continued to
worse.
through May
surgery
28, 1985. He had
on
work
days
return
his
later and was unable to
wrist two
plant May 31,
Stroh closed the
on
work before
May 31, 1985,
1985.
from
Riss received benefits
through
recuperating
July 30,
from
1985. After
capable
returning
surgery,
the wrist
Riss was
work,
did not do so.
restricted
but
granted
open
May, 1988,
Riss
award
hearing
compensation by
of worker’s
referee.
hearing
The
sickness
referee allowed Stroh
"coordinate
unemployment
benefits,
accident
ben-
by plaintiff,
efits, and
benefits received
in
compensation]
[worker’s
accordance with the
act.”
opined
The wcab
that the funds were set aside for
retire,
retirement
and' because Riss did not
but
terminated,
instead was
Stroh
because
had
plant,
payments
shut down the
not
were
Instead,
retirement.
the board classified the bene-
involuntarily
benefits]
fits as "severance
re-
purview
ceived,” which are not within the
language
coordination
771.
of 354. 1991 WCABO
Appeals
Court
consolidated these cases
and affirmed the
wcab determination
Drouil-
lard and reversed the wcab determination in Riss.
App
Brewery Co,
See Drouillard v Stroh
199 Mich
(1993). Citing
67;
1995] v op Opinion the Court II loosely unit Worker’s is one system wage-loss protection that connected also unemployment compensation, includes rity old-age, disability, social secu-
and survivors
aid
dependent
general
children, and
to families with
Copper Div, 422
assistance. Franks v White Pine
*6
(1985).
wage-
636, 654;
Mich
As of the 1981 amendments of the worker’s compensation Legislature act, 354, added provides wage-loss which for the coordination of purpose legislation benefits. The of this prevent duplicate wage-loss payments while main- 449 Opinion of the Couet benefits.1 The coordina- taining wage-loss suitable compensation early pension tion of worker’s a pursuant presents complicated to § previously only set of issues considered Appeals.2 Court of 17.237(354) 418.354; legislative history provides: of MCL major employ- Coordination of benefits has been a concern of years. compensa- ers for tion with Public Act 357 coordinated workers’ (effective 1, unemployment compensation January 1982) Security but failed to address coordination with Social pension plans. By coordinating and other insurance and work- Security ers’ fits, Social and other bene- provide major savings employers Senate Bill 595 would maintaining in the cost of workers’ while ade- quate benefit levels for disabled workers. 1912, From its creation in in Michi- workers’ gan protecting employee’s has been intended as a means of ability disability resulting wages by replacing wages to earn lost because of a on-the-job injury. from an Since other public appeared wage-loss providing the private wage replacement programs insurance have many employees with the result now receive two, three, programs benefits from or four different wage "replacement” greater wages a total than the job, employers earned while on the while who programs paying must contribute to these find themselves more replace wages single employee.
than once to situation is wage-loss system from Senate Bill public adequate wage-loss lative of of a Such a contrary philosophy Michigan’s to the basic discourages employees some disabled returning proposed *7 to work. Coordination of as in 595, overlap would reduce the between the various private wage replacement programs ensuring and while injured employees. Legis- benefits to [Senate 595, 203, Analysis, adopted SB as 1981 PA Coordination Benefits, 7, Supporting Arguments (January 1982).] Brewery only published Michigan opinion Barr v Stroh is the pattern presented addresses a fact similar to that in this case. In Barr, plaintiff receiving the when Stroh plaintiff’s employing divested itself of the unit and terminated its pension plan options, employees. plaintiff for those The was informed of his immediately, receiving pension slightly which included a of per having equal money more than $600 month or an amount of to pension plan plaintiff his share rolled over into an ira. The option $56,000, selected the second rolling and received a draft for over $30,000 keeping over into an ira the balance. The Court Appeals pаid employee of held that all of the monies to an from a pension employer subject fund when an closes its business are coordination.
1995] Drouiiaard Brewery v Stroh op Opinion the Court III 418.354(l)(d); that under MCL Plaintiffs concede 17.237(354)(l)(d), pension ordinarily benefits MSA subject However, the statute to coordination.3 are example, provides exceptions. For subsection itself 354(l)(e) propor- employer to reduce the allows pension where the tional amount pension. Additionally, has also contributed to the 354(14) prohibits employer from co- subsection application pen- The of the coordination statute the context prior, conflicting Appeals by sion In Knox v Stroh Appeals, is confused Court of actions. Co, Brewery unpublished order of the Court of (Docket 129690), 18, plaintiff August issued No. lump-sum liquidated pension check from the fund that he received magistrate The in that case disallowed then rolled over into an ira. coordination, ruling lump-sum payout that a that was rolled over into plaintiff is not until the receives thе an ira to coordination payout as taxable income. The wcac affirmed and the Court of Appeals peal. Conversely, delayed application ap- for leave to denied the defendants’ Co, unpublished in Lemke v Stroh order of (Docket 130194), Appeals, July the Court of Court coordinate a into an issued No. Appeals peremptorily refusing reversed a wcac decision lump-sum payment immediately that was rolled over ira, then for further remanded Lemke to wcac proceedings consistent with Barr. 17.237(354X1) 418.354(1); relevant subsections MCL provide: applicable weekly lump This section is when either or sum payments pursuant time pursuant the ployee. Except ployer’s obligation liability are made to an as a result of 351, 361, respect or 835 to the section same period pension payments for which . . . or retirement plan program by to a or established or maintained employer, being by are also received or received the em- the em- section, provided as otherwise in this pay paid weekly or cause to be (3) specific other than loss benefits under section shall be reduced these amounts: (d) pay- The after-tax amount of the or retirement being pursuant plan program ments received or established or received to a or maintained the same from whom received, 351, 361, if benefits under section or 835 are employee ment directly did not contribute or retire- plan program. or *8 449 293 Mich op Opinion the Court ordinating pension plan disability that was in 31, 1982. existence on March exempted they Plaintiffs contend that are 418.354(12); from coordination MCL 17.237(354X12). provision, In reference to this 354(12) plaintiffs precludes contend that subsection coordination all cases which an "compels” accept employees early retirement or pension benefits. We first note that it is not clear plaintiffs compelled accept early that ment benefits. told that accept were retire- apparent plaintiffs
It were expedient the more course would be to Howеver, their it is true also general disparate that this was advice to a audience plaintiffs specifically were instructed to seek legal accepting arguendo plaintiffs’ they questions. However, advice if had even they
contention that compelled accept early pension benefits, we believe that the conclusion that subsection thereby precludes only coordination follows from a reading forced of the statute. statutory
The cardinal rule of
construction is to
give
Legisla-
discern and
effect
intent of the
Michigan
Murphy
Telephone Co,
ture.
v
Bell
(1994).
long
93, 98;
NW2d
It has
accepted principle
statutory
been an
construc-
discerning
legislative
through
tion, in
will
its
give
enactments,
to construe a statute so as to
full
provisions.
e.g., Malonny
See,
effect to all its
v
(1847).
354(12) pro-
Mahar,
Nothing in this section shall be considered to compel early for federal security old-age social insurance benefits or to apply benefits. or reduced or retirement [Emphasisadded.] emphasized language, As indicated we be- 1995] *9 v Opinion of the Court interpretation proper of subsec- the a clue to
lieve 354(12) language in the "Noth- can be found tion apply.” plain ing A and and "to in this section” provision interpretation straightforward of this addressing Legislature some- the shows that plaintiffs. thing by This claimed the less than is provides unambiguously clearly statute Michigan’s not itself should coordination statute early compel application interpreted for be pension benefits. reading supported by interpretation sub
This
354(12)
conjunction with the rest of the
section
fact,
is so re
In
this Court
coordination statute.
quired;
interpretation
statutes, effect
of
in the
possible,
every
given,
word,
sentence
if
must be
end,
and,
the entire act must
to that
and section
consistent enact
an harmonious and
be read to be
Employees
v Monroe Co
ment as a whole. Dussia
System,
244, 248; 191 NW2d
386 Mich
Retirement
(1971).
employ
provides that
Subsection
eligibility
employee’s
for
notified of an
ers shall be
employees
security
shall
and that
benefits
social
eligible.4
security
аpply
when
for social
benefits
17.237(354)(3)
418.354(3);
provides:
MCL
(1) any
application
credit or reduction
In
of subsection
the
following:
pursuant
section and all of the
shall occur
(a)
provide
promulgate
for notifica-
rules to
The bureau shall
possible
employee
employer
by
to an
of
tion
an
or carrier
requirements
eligibility
establishing
security
for
and the
for social
benefits
proof
application
benefits. Notification
of
for those
employee
date on
promptly
the
after the
mailed to
shall be
age
employee may
be entitled to social
which
reason
eligibility
possible
copy
security
notification of
A
benefits.
employer
by the
or carrier.
with the bureau
shall be filed
(b)
possible
receipt
days
the notification of
after
Within 30
eligibility
employee
shall:
(i)
security
application
for social
Make
(ii)
appli-
proof
employer
or carrier
Provide
cation.
(iii)
authority
employer
an
or carrier with
Provide the
employer
utilized
which shall be
of information
release
cannot withhold worker’s "compel” apply benefits in order to security for social or benefits.6 Legislature easily have, not, could did but clearly unambigu- written the statute to read ously plaintiffs as the would like: "Coordination of compels not if early will *10 employee pension, to receive or reduced retirement or other benefits that can be coordi- nated.” We believe that subsection
354(12) was only any intended to void inference that necessary or carrier to obtain benefit entitlement and amount security information from the social thority administration. The au- year. for release of information shall be effective for 1 17.237(354)(4) 418.354(4); provides: 5 MCL MSA employee provide proof application Failure of the to the of or authority рrescribed the tion for release of information as in subsec- (3) approval shall allow the or carrier with the of payable the bureau to discontinue the benefits to 351, 361, proof the application under section or 835 until the of authority and the for release of information is provided. Compensation benefits withheld shall be reimbursed employee upon providing required proof to the application, the of the of information, authority or the for release of or both. 354(12) recognize We that while subsection refers to both social 354(3) (4) security social Representatives pension only subsections refer to security submission, benefits. We note that on of House 354(12) language amended subsection and added the apply early pension "or to for or reduced or retirement benefits.” 1981 original only Senate Journal 2575. The bill contained reference to security old-age interpret federal social insurance benefits. We require amendment to subsection treated as the statute treated. tо benefits be benefits be clearly security intends social Any interpretation other of this statute would lead to incon- gruous and unreasonable results.
1995] v by Dissenting Opinion Mallett, J. encourage employers might permit or itself pen- security application early or social coerce compensa- withholding by worker’s benefits sion all cases not written It was tion. "compelled” required or which accept early written To have retirement benefits. would defeat a manner such the statute i.e., purposes statute, coordination twin wage-loss duplicative while elimination maintaining wage-loss payment. level of a suitable IV plaintiffs, argument Contrary MCL 17.237(354)(l)(d) 418.354(l)(d); intended Michigan’s any only work- inference to void per- might statute coordination er’s mit or appli- encourage employers to coerce security or for social cation compensation. withholding therefore We disposition affirm the Court of these cases hearing Appeals refer- them to and remand proceedings with this consistent further ees fоr opinion. JJ., Weaver, Riley, con-
Levin, Boyle,
Brickley, C.J.
curred with
(dissenting). In these consolidated
*11
to
is allowed
defendant
address whether
cases1 we
1
See
has reached this Court.
this case
is the second time
This
(1993).
following
order:
and entered
We remanded
the than order) development of a days date of this 90 from the parties, by record, stipulation on the preferably based on a employees were general the affected Stroh whether plan pension money pension in the permitted to leave their 7.302(F)(1). amplified closing. record plant despite MCR 449 Mich Dissenting Opinion by Mallett, coordinate plaintiffs’ employee pension benefits with their pursu ant to the Act, Worker’s Disability Compensation 17.237(354).* 418.354; MCL MSA Because we dis agree with the majority, we would hold that under cases, circumstances in presented these 354(12) exception contained prohibits defen § dant from coordinating рlaintiffs’ benefits.3 Regard include, example, employee should was cash account for whether each affected effectively required among options (e.g., to choose various distribution, rollover, annuity) pension to which the ika balance, pension being liquidated, in a trust that was magistrate would be forwarded. The is directed to issue a finding how, all, describing employees if at affected Stroh permitted
workers’ claims were to leave their pension money pension plan adversely in the Stroh without affecting Jurisdiction NW2d 229 right their to claim workers’ Reported App is retained. below: 199 Mich 67 [501 (1993)]. 418.354(1); 17.237(354)(1) The relevant sections of MCL pro vide: (1) applicable This weekly lump section is when either or payments sum pursuant time liability are made to an as a result of 351, 361, respect to section or 835 with to the same period pension payments for which . . . or retirement
pursuant the plan program to a by or established or maintained employer, being by are also received or received the em- the em- ployee. Except provided section, as otherwise in this ployer’s obligation other than pay paid weekly or cause to be specific (3) loss benefits under section shall be reduced these amounts: (d) The after-tax pay- amount of the or retirement being pursuant ments established or maintained plan program received or received to a or the same from whom 351, 361, received, benefits under section employee ment or 835 are if the directly did not contribute or retire- plan program. [Emphasis or added.] 354(12) provides exceptions Section one of the referred to 354(1). Nothing compel in' this section shall be considered to security old-age federal social *12 307
1995] Brewery v Stroh Opinion by Dissenting J. 354(12), ing Appeals briefly stated: § the Court 354(12)] Arguments of the coordination [§ prevent the coordination of operates statute pension cannot sustained without these be Co, 189 doing violence to Barr’s [v 549; (1991)] holding 716 App Mich 473 NW2d these benefits are to coordination. [199 67, 71; (1993).] App Mich NW2d holding, disagree with this not because we We emрloyer may full that an not reduce the believe received under the coordi- amount of nation itly 354(12) explic- statute, rather, because but compelling early an bars an take pension payout. Accordingly, we would reverse the Appeals. of the Court of decision
i compensation, wage replace like other Worker’s G programs, program.4 ment is a social welfare ene rally, under the worker’s statute insurance benefits or to or reduced or
retirement benefits.
4Describing
protective purpose
of the worker’s
scheme,
Div,
Copper
this
in Franks
Pine
Court stated
v White
(1985):
636, 654;
Under MCL MSA pension benefits are ordinarily to coordina- However, tion. the statute provides itself excep- 354(l)(e) tions. For example, allows the employer § to reduce proportional amount where the has аlso contributed 354(14) pension. Additionally, prohibits an em- § ployer from coordinating a disability pension plan that in 31, existence on March 1982. case, present we are concerned with the
exception found in 418.354(12); MCL 17.237(354)(12), provides: which
Nothing in this section shall be considered to compel social apply an apply early for federal security old-age insurance benefits or to for or reduced or retirement [Emphasis added.] In reference provision, to this plaintiffs contend they were compelled by the circumstances accept an early pension benefits payout.
Conversely, defendant claims that plaintiffs had option not apply their benefits. Defen- dant maintains any participants not paid because of a failure to apply would have had their
1995] v Opinion Dissenting party, i.e., third turned over to a company. insurance dispute, how we must determine
To resolve this
statutory
the overall
scheme
fits into
Legislature
intended this section
if the
type
of case.
n
Michigan
constru
that when
It is well settled
ing statutes,
to discern and
the cardinal
rule is
Murphy
give
Legislature’s
v
intent.
effect to
Michigan
Telephone
Co,
98; 523
447 Mich
Bell
(1994);
Mut Ins Co v
Pioneer State
NW2d
Co,
590, 595;
Ill provisions The coordination-of-benefits were de- signed part to prevent from receiv- if ing duplicate benefits. Defеndant contends benefits, it is not plaintiffs allowed to coordinate would, essence, receive more than are they entitled to under the worker’s compensation scheme.- The of 354 history demonstrates a desire part Legislature on the to protect worker’s compensation benefits while a recur- remedying ring dual-benefits payment that had quandary existed since the enactment of the worker’s com- pensation statute. Coordination major of benefits has been a con- employers cern of years. for Public Act coordi- compensation
nated workers’ with unemployment (effective 1982) 1, January but failed to address coordination with Security Social other plans. By insurance and coordinat- ing workers’ benefits with Social Security and other Senate Bill 595 would provide major savings employers in the cost of maintaining workers’ while ade- quate beneñt levels disabled workers. 1912, From its creation in compensa- workers’ Michigan tion in has been intended as a means of protecting an employee’s ability replacing wages wages to earn disability lost because of a result- ing on-the-job from an injury. Since other public programs private wage replacement insurance appeared have with the result many employees wage-loss now receive two, three, from programs provid- or four different *15 ing wage a "replacement” greater total than the wages job, earned while on the while employers programs who must contribute to these paying find themselves replace more than once to wages single employee. of a Such a situation is contrary philosophy Michigan’s basic of 1995] v Stroh Dissenting Opinion Mallett, discourages some disabled wage-loss system and of returning to work. Coordination employees from 595, Bill would proposed in Senate as public and overlap between the various reduce the private wage replacement programs while ensur- injured employ- adequate wage-loss ing beneñts 595, adopted Analysis, SB Legislative ees. [Senate Benefits, 203, Support- PA of as 1981 ing Arguments Coordination 1982). Emphasis (January added.] purpose to the
Therefore, there was a dual First, statute. enactment of the coordination provide employers major legislation was crafted savings Second, costs. specific emphasized excerpts show the intent adequate wage-loss injured protect em- ployees. Thus, must not be coordination compensa- expense allowed at the of the worker’s tion act as a whole. 354(12) argues § an intrinsic
Defendant that is statutory than a limitation construction aid rather right employer’s on an disagree. to coordinate benefits. We gives language itself of the statute 354(12) designed § to be a no indication proviso only the remainder of the that Instead, clarifies proviso contrary A statute. is true. opera- generally limits the added as a clause that special tion of the rule and removes general cases from the generally enactment. Such clauses are set general apart strictly tory enactment and are to be from thе Singer, Statu- construed. 1A Sutherland (5th ed), p 20.22, Thus, 110. § Construction proviso, it would have to be considered special only. drafted to address cases had to been history Moreover, SB 595 it is clear from the Legislature protect the inter- intended to employees have in their benefits. On est submission, Representatives amended the House *16 Dissenting Opinion Mallett, J. 354(12) language apply § "or to and added the pension or retirement benefits.” or reduced original con- 1981 Senate Journal 2575. The bill security only to federal social old- tained reference age insurance benefits. old-age security insurance and
Federal social meeting pension plans are at the income aimed post Conversely, retirement. needs individuals compensation designed to worker’s provide benefits are wages during replacement employee’s an recog- disability Clearly, Legislature status. wage replacement purposes the different nized programs welfare and intended to these social separate wage-loss future сurrent benefits from wage-loss in benefits. This fundamental difference support purpose lends further to the notion that circumstances, in the coordinated. these should not be Legislature
Thus, it is clear that specifically protecting pension was concerned with benefits. reading
A of the statute as a whole indicates 354(12) was meant to all cases employer compels employees accept which an early retirement or benefits. Section 354(12) specifically designed protect was an to. employee’s wage-loss interest future prohibit coordinating and to an from compensation worker’s benefits where an compelled accept early pension payout. We legislation believe this was the intent of the accordingly apply § would to this case. IV concerning § There have been cases several and the coordination of worker’s relatively benefits, but few have considered coordi- nating pen- worker’s benefits with Brewery Stroh v
1995] Dissenting Opinion Brewery, however, is a Barr v Stroh sion benefits.5 comparable circumstances. under case that arose plaintiff injured Barr, and was receiv- was During ing plaintiff’s disability, divested itself employment plaintiff’s unit and terminated employees. pension plan result, As a with those its given option plaintiff to receive an *17 monthly pension an amount or to have immediate of rolled over into an The pension plan equal money to his share in the account. individual retirement plaintiff rolled a draft for received $56,642, the into an and retained balance. over $30,000 ira, Appeals allowed Stroh to coordinate The Court of with the retained worker’s balance without benefits application
addressing the Id. at 354(12).6 551. present Barr in two case is different from The giving liquida- respects. First, the event rise to the this, of liquidation the different in each case. Because tion was plaintiff party not a in Barr was dispute Second, in this case. that is central to the perhaps importantly, present the facts and indicate that more compelled accept
plaintiffs to leaving payout, them without a rational the the no indication in Barr that choice. There is properly upheld following have the administrative decisions pension right under to coordinate worker’s Siegler, appropriate Vyn Rapistan v Div of Lear the circumstances. 320, lump-sum appellate held that the commission WCACO pension payouts funds to coordination or retirement are (l)(d). under subsection Brewery, 1993 the commission In Lemke v Stroh WCACO employers purpose is so that should not held that the of coordination status, nonworking lump- employees’ required pay so twice for be period of time. over a sufficient distribution must be coordinated sum See also Blevins v Shinville Associates, 1443. 1993 WCACO plan liquidation pension that the The Court also held payment payment of those benefits does not make the the thereon fall, that, thus, parame payments pay, within the the severance supra; Brewery, Shea v Wells See Barr v Stroh ters of the erisa. Fargo 1987). (CA 2, Corp, 810 F2d 372 Armored Service 449 Opinion Dissenting early compelled plaintiff аlleged to take an he was pension payout. given plaintiff
Moreover, Barr, pension. receiving monthly begin opportunity of receiv- choices consisted Riss’ and Drouillard’s ing electing lump pension or in a sum Stroh’s not to take such a distribution. dispositive two testified about fund administrator effectually plaintiffs a mean- without left facts ingful accept they first, if did not choice: money payout, not accrue interest. their would Second, not to receive such a if an chose money payout, to an be transferred would company. insurance statutory only that has other state
Maine is
present
language
issue in the
similar to that at
221(8),
Ann,
39-A, §
tit
The Me Rev Stat
case.
provides:
Nothing
may
in this
be considered
section
early
compel
social
for
federal
old-age
security
benefits or to
insurance
apply reduced
or retirement
or
*18
Co,
The suffered a compensable injury and, in- because his back early ability work, retirement. forced into was approximately gave plaintiff $22,000 in the Sears funds paid plaintiff’s the that had into Sears plaintiff pension account, that the immedi- Subsequently, ately rolled it over into an ira. petition The to coordinate benefits. Sears filed to a is not entitled court held that an an benefits when coordination 1995] Drouillard v Dissenting Opinion Mallett,
employee an ira rolls benefits over into from the until those funds are distributed ira. note, however, do that the Jordan court held We 221(8) pro- statutory language found at that the protection against mandatory coordina- vides employee is forced into tion of benefits where recognize Id. at n 3. We also retirement. 354(12), Michigan provision, § was de- signed protect a worker’s earned bene- designed for and are not fits that are retirement wages. replace current intended v presentation options employees’ distinguishes liquidation meetings only not Barr, it also should determi- this case from but be meetings, of the outcome. At each em- native presented following ployee was with the forms prepared that were in advance the contract (1) plan (2) application administrator: an (3) form, a benefit election an election for (4) payees lump-sum distributions, a waiver provided form. The benefit election form ployees the em- options. employee First, with two could joint annuity. Second, elect a and survivor any joint could revoke and survivor single annuity pay- and take the in a distribution ment or it could be rolled into an individual retirement account. explained
The administrator the law re- quired joint that a married elect a spousal annuity, survivor unless consent for an- option Significantly, other was obtained. none of employees the forms indicated that the could leave money in their the trust. suggested employees it
It that would accept lump interests to sums be their best *19 449 Dissenting Opinion Mallett, the in trust. At leaving money their instead admin- plan contract defendant’s hearing-, remand Holefca, istrator, Dean testified: you if is that trying to differentiate What I was it accumulate in the trust would money the left And, there- any interest. It would not earn dust. money in the fore, the wise to leave it was not have, in Therefore, they really didn’t trust. foolish to regard, or it would be respect, in that point the I That was money in the trust. leave the [Emphasis trying to make. added.] the leaving consequences respect With fund, testified: Mr. Holefca in the money vested happen to their us what would Q. Tell apply for it? they if did not pension benefit benefit, and not for their they A. If did Brewery Com- intention of Stroh it is the because Plan, participant’s any then the pany to terminate failure to paid not because of who are benefit, have would those benefits apply for i.e., insurance part[y]; given to a third been obligation pay the benefits company and Plan to the Stroh Retirement pass from the would company. insurance fact, plan made by provisions no employees in which maintain a trust
establish and Moreover, it is unknown leave their benefits. could was to establish company the insurance whether employees’ which the of trust under some sort in trust and accumulate remain money would interest. concern- dispute some appears
There also be even told administrator plan whether ing leaving option had the they employees testified: example, Holefca in trust. For money *20 Brewery v Stroh 1995] Dissenting by Opinion Mallett, J.
Q. you any people, Did tell of these the Stroh’s employees, meetings terminated you when had the them, you your that them, had with or in letters you they just did tell them could leave the money plan they in the did not have to elect any options you mentioned? But, A. I meetings; did at the I that’s correct. them, meetings, they
also told at these that if left money plan in the it would accrue no interest. Q. You have in testified a number of these Compensation; Stroh’s cases for Workers’ correct? A. That’s correct.
Q. you you agree you last time did also that testifying remember in the case of Gilbert Shane v Company; is that correct? A. That’s correct. Q. year That was within a after these events shutdown, occurred with the Stroh’s and the meet-
ings had; you that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q.
time;
yоu
saying
being
Do
recall
at
that
question,
you
asked the
"Did
any
tell
of these
people,
you
meetings,
when
had
your
these
or in
people,
letter
you
to these
did
tell
they
them
could
just
money
leave their
they
there and
didn’t have
Answer, "No,
options?”
elect one of these
I did
”
not.
I
correctly?
Did read that
A. You read that correctly. [Emphasis added.]
From
dialogue,
we
plaintiffs
conclude
that
either were not
leaving
informed
that
the money
option
trust was an
or operated
under
assumption
that monies
left
in trust would not
Indeed,
accumulate
interest.
it
is these facts that
necessitate
the determination
that Stroh Brewery
is not entitled
to coordinate
plaintiffs’
under
354.
As the wcab stated: 418.354(12) 17.237(354X12)] Also, MCL [MSA compel employer may not states the fits, terms bene- retirement case, in this if did not do so defendant choice plaintiff any If had other
what did it do? at once or to draw out his than take them over time, appear choice does not was out of work. We job here. His ended and he argument agree completely plaintiff’s briefed benefits, designed, every- as that coordination of knows, pro- body connected with the Act well dipping” unjust enrichment hibit "double *21 applied not be when an employees, could "retirement,” plant into when was forced is ending employment. Obviously, his closed 354(12) words, telling plain is us what Section though it does not mention either. defendant [1991 WCABO 771.] regard, agree the Section the act In this we wcab. 354(12) telling plain us in words” that "is applied was when an "could not be ” (emphasis early 'retirement.’ Id. forced into added). may However, itself not have while Stroh compelling plaintiffs directly responsible been lump-sum payment,7 plaintiffs accept were the to nevertheless statute. that compelled meaning of the within the reading indicates A clear of the statute perspective § is to be viewed from the employee. of the inquiry
Simply stated, of the is the focus compelled accept plaintiffs to whether early pension payout, was not whether defendant liquidation important the was caused It is to note the separate entity plant. is a from the shutdown of the plan Defendant Stroh However, to defendant. and Dean Holefca has no relation accept early pension payout. compelled plaintiffs were nevertheless program, welfare we need is a social Because worker’s not find part fault on the of the defendant. v Stroh
1995] Dissenting Opinion Mallett, actually compelling party. Indeed, like other programs, welfare social worker’s is system. a no-fault 1912, Michigan along with most of the other
states, adopted a worker’s act. The remedy essentially system, new under which a a no-fault longer prove worker no had to negligence part on employer of the and the employer’s three defenses were eliminated. The require intent of the law was to an employer compensate injury a worker for any suffered in the employment, regardless course of the worker’s any [Welch, the existence of fault. Worker’s Com- (2d pensation ed), Michigan: p Law & Practice 2.] relationship Thus, the of Dean Holеfca to the except irrelevant,8 defendant is that defendant obligated pay compensa- nevertheless plaintiffs long they tion to the as as remain dis- reading A abled. literal of the coordination statute prohibits compulsion early pension pay- of an Copper Div, out. See Franks v White Pine (1985). 636, 658; NW2d question before us then is whether pursu- is allowed to coordinate benefits 354(l)(d) closing ant or whether of the brewery subsequent liquidation and the *22 pension plan compelled employees accept the an pension payout provide excep- that would the 354(12). § tion outlined in College The Random House Webster’s Diction- ary “compel” at defines as follows: “to force or president company Dean Holefca is the owner and of a emphasized testimony administrates that he is the contract trator. Under the ers over trust funds. He his on remand plan plan administrator and not the adminis erisa, plan discretionary pow administrators have pension funds and are therefore fiduciaries of the funds. 29 that, рlan USC 1104. Mr. Holefca testified as a contract administra tor, may only carry he out the directives of the board. 449 Dissenting Opinion Compel esp. .... of action drive, to a course persuasive may implies force; it abe external an constraining person urging or a from another added.) (Emphasis . . . .” or circumstance reason to the occurrences this definition We would plaintiffs present not were case. While in the lump-sum payment were the forced to take leaving option given accumulated their the of pension fund, choice would such a in the monies have been irrational money any not re-
because In- interest. have accumulated would not ceived deed, plan either did administrator the contract option employees it inform or made of this the not seem such a person any poor rational choice that accepted begrudgingly immediate an have would lump-sum payout. compel, in the as used The word suggest that the statute, as to is not so inflexible employees company accept only have had to force would option. Instead, under one undesirable presented here, we limited circumstances compel of a to mean the absence construe would purposes Thus, choice. rational accept compelled plaintiffs statute, early payout expressly which prohibits.
vi plan, liquidate employer may An provisions lump-sum payments are statute liquidation if the of the coordination opinion, properly However, in our administered. meaningful plaintiffs choice in this case had no lump-sum payouts. accept these other than to repre- leaving money option their in trust was employees poor Moreover, the as a choice. sented pensions of their that the value were led to believe employees essence, left intact. would not be *23 v Stroh 1995] Dissenting Opinion Mallett, J. money
were told that their would not earn inter- represents very compulsion est. This fact employees real for a distribution. Because plaintiffs compelled accept lump-sum pay- outs, defendant should not be able to coordinate plaintiffs’ benefits with Accordingly, their we would re- verse both cases. J.,
Cavanagh, concurred with