By PETER HUSSMANN
Lawyers representing the 3,000 Maytag plant retirees, surviving spouses and dependents of its former operation in Newton laid out the legal arguments they plan to employ in seeking to get a federal district court judge's ruling that said Whirlpool had the right to change their medical benefits overturned.
Late Wednesday, lawyers representing the UAW and UAW Local 997 in Newton filed a 72-page brief summarizing the arguments they plan to make to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in seeking reversal of Judge James Gritzner's ruling in favor of Whirlpool in July.
In seeking 30 minutes of oral argument before the appeals court, Robert Seltzer, counsel for defedant-appellants UAW and UAW Local 997, contends the federal district court "wrongfully decided that a case or controversy existed between the company and the union at the commencement" of the lawsuit; and that Whirlpool "could unilaterally modify the retiree medical benefits because they were not vested."
"The Union will demonstrate that the trial evidence shows the opposite: first, that the company failed to establish that it had standing, and second, that the Newton retirees had contractually vested medical benefits that the company impermissilby modified," the filing first made public this morning states.
At the December 2010 bench trial in the federal district court in Des Moines, lawyers for the UAW and its Local 997 retirees argued that no case or controversy existed at the time between the company and the union at the time Whirlpool filed suit in July 2008.
Lawyers for the union contend the evidence presented at trial shows that the UAW only took an "adverse position" with respect to Whirlpool's request to bargain about retiree benefits and that there is no evidence that the UAW ever "took the position that Whirlpool could not modify the retiree benefit schedules."
"As the company never disclosed its plan to change retiree medical benefits to the union prior to the commencement of this lawsuit, and naturally the union could and did not object to a plan it knew nothing about, the company did not suffer an 'injury in fact' establishing standing and a case or controversy" for this action.
Lawyers for the former Maytag production workers also plan to argue to the Court of Appeals that the district court erred when it determined that the trial evidence failed to demonstrate that the company and the union had agreed to vest retiree medical benefits.
The union counsel plans to argue that point by noting that each collectively-bargained supplemental insurance agreement (SIA) from 1967 to 2004 contains language that "confers company-paid health care benefits on every employee who retires 'for himself and eligible dependents during his life.'"
"This language, combined with similar language in the SIAs covering surviving spouses and others, is evidence of an intent to vest retiree benefits," the brief states.
In addition, lawyers for the retirees argue Maytag provided medical benefits to retirees beyond the termination date of the SIA under which they retired, evidence they claim shows an intent to vest medical benefits, especially when combined with the "during his life" provisions of the supplemental agreements.
And, the lawyers note, Maytag's decision to continue to provide medical benefits to retirees while cutting off health insurance to active employees during the 2004 union strike again shows that the parties had agreed that retiree medical benefits were vested.
Attorneys for Whirlpool have until Jan. 6, 2012 to file their reply brief to the union's appeal arguments with the UAW's reply brief due to the appeals court by Jan. 20, 2012.
Recent Comments