By PETER HUSSMANN
A federal judge has allowed a lawsuit filed on behalf of Maytag retirees who asserted Whirlpool improperly made changes to the health care benefits of former workers at the Newton plant to be voluntarily dismissed.
Robert Pratt, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, granted plaintiffs' motion to voluntarily dismiss the case in a ruling last week.
The action was one of two cases filed in connection with changes made by Whirlpool to the health care benefits provided to former Maytag workers following Whirlpool's acquisition of the century-old Newton, Iowa-based appliance manufacturer.
When Whirlpool acquired Maytag on March 31, 2006, the Benton Harbor, Mich.-based corporation assumed the collective bargaining agreement in place covering employment conditions for union members represented by the UAW Local 997 as well as the related benefits plan for retirees.
During collective bargaining negotiations in advance of the contract's expiration in July 2008, Whirlpool proposed modifying medical benefits provided to retirees and their dependents. Specifically, Whirlpool proposed to move all current and future retirees of Maytag to the Whirlpool group benefit plan.
The UAW responded, court records state, by saying it would not bargain over the proposed modifications, Further, the UAW contended, Whirlpool could not modify the medical benefits of current retirees.
Whirlpool responded by filing a federal lawsuit in Iowa in July 2008 stating it "has the right to change the retiree medical benefits schedule effective Jan. 1, 2009, following its unilateral decision to continue the current schedule until that date, without violating any collective bargaining agreement" or the federal Employee Retiree Income Security Act (ERISA).
Two weeks later the plaintiffs in the action ruled on last week by Judge Pratt filed suit in the Western District of Michigan asserting that Whirlpool improperly made changes to the health care benefits of retirees who formerly worked at the Newton, Iowa Maytag plant and at Whirlpool's Mt. Sterling, Ken., plant.
Since that time, legal wrangling in the Maytag retiree case has centered on proper venue due to the similarity of the two cases. In October, the Michigan case was transferred to Iowa under the first to file rule after an unsuccessful appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In late October, lawyers for the Maytag retirees filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the action.
In asking that the court grant its motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, lawyer's for the Maytag retiree plaintiffs claimed "that they no longer want to pursue this litigation and should not be required to prosecute this litigation against their will."
The plaintiffs also argued that virtually no discovery has been initiated in the case while the Iowa case filed by Whirlpool "has progressed to the point where discovery is nearly completed."
Whirlpool resisted the motion for voluntary dismissal stating that "given the history of this litigation ... it is apparent that plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal is yet another effort to lodge this dispute in Michigan despite orders from three different courts finding the dispute belongs in this district."
Lawyers for Whirlpool contend the plaintiffs intend to refile the case in Michigan once the Iowa action is concluded, a contention lawyers for the Maytag retirees dismiss.
"Plaintiffs want to set the record straight: Plaintiffs' counsel does not have the authority, and plaintiffs have no intention, to refile this case in Michigan or anywhere else with these or any other class members as long as the Iowa declaratory judgment action proceeds as a class action," the ruling states.
In ruling to dismiss the suit, Judge Pratt stated the "plaintiffs have adequately explained their desire for dismissal."
"Plaintiffs have represented to the court that they do not wish to litigate this action in a forum they did not choose, and plaintiffs have further stated that their belief that expenditures in pursuing this action would be duplicative and unnecessary given the various rulings finding that the Iowa action has precedence," the order states.
Judge Pratt rejected Whirlpool's arguments.
"In short, the court is not convinced that plaintiffs' request for dismissal is simply a guise to permit plaintiffs to refile the action in Michigan at a later date," he wrote.
Finally, the court declined to award any attorney fees to Whirlpool "because it cannot say that the course of the litigation in the ... action was inappropriate, vexatious, or frivolous." However, should the plaintiffs or counsel for the plaintiffs refile the "action in any form, separate from the Iowa action and contrary to their stated position ... the court authorizes Whirlpool to reapply for an attorney fee award for all costs incurred..."
The action filed by Whirlpool against the UAW continues. Currently, Whirlpool is looking to compel the depositions of former UAW officials.
Recent Comments