M&G Polymers United States, LLC v. Tackett
2015 U.S. LEXIS 759, 190 L.Ed.2d 809, 135 S. Ct. 926 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Collective-bargaining agreements, including those establishing ERISA welfare benefits plans, must be interpreted according to ordinary principles of contract law, without applying special presumptions or inferences in favor of vested retiree benefits.
Facts:
- In 2000, M&G Polymers USA, LLC (M&G) purchased the Point Pleasant Polyester Plant and entered into a master collective-bargaining agreement and a Pension, Insurance, and Service Award Agreement (P&I agreement) with the Union.
- The P&I agreement stipulated that certain retirees, along with their surviving spouses and dependents, would “receive a full Company contribution towards the cost of [health care] benefits.”
- The agreement also stated that such benefits would be provided “for the duration of [the] Agreement” and that the agreement would be subject to renegotiation in three years.
- In December 2006, after the agreements had expired, M&G announced that it would begin requiring retirees to contribute to the cost of their health care benefits.
- Respondent retirees, Hobert Freel Tackett, Woodrow K. Pyles, and Harlan B. Conley, representing a class, alleged that the P&I agreement created a vested right to lifetime contribution-free health care benefits.
- The retirees pointed to the language in the 2000 P&I agreement that employees with sufficient seniority “will receive a full Company contribution towards the cost of [health care] benefits.”
Procedural Posture:
- Respondent retirees sued M&G Polymers USA, LLC and related entities in District Court, alleging breach of contract in violation of §301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and §502(a)(1)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
- The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding the language did not unambiguously create a vested right.
- The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal, applying its reasoning from International Union, United Auto, Aerospace, & Agricultural Implement Workers of Am. v. Yard-Man, Inc. (Tackett I).
- On remand, the District Court conducted a bench trial and ruled in favor of the retirees, issuing a permanent injunction.
- The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's ruling, concluding it had not erred in "presum[ing]" that, in the absence of contrary extrinsic evidence, the agreements indicated an intent to vest lifetime benefits (Tackett II).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are the Sixth Circuit's Yard-Man inferences, which place a thumb on the scale in favor of vested retiree benefits when interpreting collective-bargaining agreements, compatible with ordinary principles of contract law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Thomas
No, the Sixth Circuit’s Yard-Man inferences, which favor vested retiree benefits, are incompatible with ordinary principles of contract law. The Court emphasized that collective-bargaining agreements, including those establishing ERISA welfare plans, should be interpreted according to general contract principles, at least when not inconsistent with federal labor policy. ERISA distinguishes between pension and welfare plans, with welfare plans (like health care) explicitly exempt from vesting standards. The Court criticized Yard-Man for distorting the attempt to ascertain the parties' intentions by placing a "thumb on the scale" in favor of vested retiree benefits. It found Yard-Man's inferences (e.g., that the absence of a specific termination clause for retiree benefits implies vesting, or that retiree benefits are "delayed compensation" or "status" benefits) to be speculative, based on suppositions rather than record evidence or proven industry customs, and applied indiscriminately across industries. The Court also noted that Yard-Man misapplied the illusory promises doctrine and failed to consider traditional principles such as not construing ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises or that contractual obligations ordinarily cease upon agreement termination. The Court vacated the Sixth Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for interpretation under ordinary principles of contract law.
Concurring - Justice Ginsburg
Yes, Justice Ginsburg concurred, agreeing that courts must apply ordinary contract principles, "shorn of presumptions," to determine if retiree health-care benefits survive a collective-bargaining agreement's expiration. She reaffirmed that the "cardinal principle" of contract interpretation is to gather the parties' intention from the entire instrument, considering relevant industry-specific customs and practices. She clarified that no rule requires "clear and express" language to show an intent for benefits to vest, noting that implied terms can also establish such intent. Justice Ginsburg suggested that on remand, the Court of Appeals should examine the entire agreement, including provisions tying health benefits to pension eligibility and survivor benefits clauses, and, if the contract remains ambiguous, consider extrinsic evidence like bargaining history. This analysis must be conducted without the Yard-Man presumption.
Analysis:
This decision significantly alters the landscape for interpreting retiree welfare benefits in collective-bargaining agreements, particularly within the Sixth Circuit. By rejecting the Yard-Man presumption, the Supreme Court reinforces the principle that courts must apply neutral contract interpretation rules, placing a greater burden on unions and retirees to demonstrate explicit contractual intent for lifetime benefits. The ruling ensures consistency with ERISA's differential treatment of pension and welfare plans, making it harder for retirees to establish vested rights to health care benefits when agreements are silent or ambiguous regarding duration. This case will likely lead to more precise drafting of collective-bargaining agreements regarding the vesting and duration of retiree welfare benefits, and may make it more difficult for retirees to successfully sue employers for benefit termination.
