FASCINATING CASE REGARDING REDUCTIONS TO RETIRMENT BENEFITS

There has been no talk at all about Trimet's breaking its contractual obligations to its retirees by unilaterally changing our health care coverage to whatever is being provided to the current full time employees.

Here is a case out of NY where this type of maneuver  was challenged. Nobody that I know of has taken the case of diminishing Trimet retiree benefits  to a lawyer for contractual study. Maybe its about time somebody did.

Kolbe v. Tibbetts

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Docket: 235

Opinion Date: December 12, 2013

Judge: Lippman

Areas of Law: Contracts, Labor & Employment Law

Plaintiffs, former employees of a school district (District), were members of a collective bargaining unit. One plaintiff retired while the 1999-2003 collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was in effect, and the other plaintiffs retired under the 2003-2007 CBA. In 2009, the District informed Plaintiffs that their co-pays would be governed under the terms of the 2007-2012 CBA, resulting in an increase from their previous co-pay charges. Plaintiffs filed this action for breach of contract, alleging that by increasing their co-pays, the District violated the terms of the CBAs in effect when Plaintiffs retired. Supreme Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding that the contract did not specify that an equivalent level of coverage would continue during retirement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division as modified, holding (1) the plain meaning of the contract unambiguously established that Plaintiffs had a vested right to the "same coverage" during retirement as they had when they retired; and (2) because an issue of fact remained as to whether the parties intended for the right to the "same coverage" to preclude any modifications to prescription co-pays, it was necessary to remit the case for a hearing on the issue.

 READ THE FULL CASE HERE!