NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL- TEXT P UBLICA TION File Name: 12 a11 20n. 06
No. 10 -137 0
UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FOR THE SIX TH CIRCUIT

KENNET H C. SCHREIBER, MARY JANE LAMBE RT, and GEORGE H. VANT INE on beh a lf of the mse lv es and a similarly situat ed class,
Plaint if f s-Appe llants,

v

. P H I L I P S D I S P L A Y C O M P O N E N T S COMPANY, PHILI PS ELE CTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORAT ION, and PHILI PS P ACE,
Def end ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL FROM T HE UNITE D ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT FOR T HE EAS T ERN DIST RICT OF MICHIGAN

Bef ore: DAUGHT REY, MOORE, an d McKE AGUE, Circuit Judges.

MARTHA CRAIG DAUGHTRE Y, Circuit Judge. T his put ative class-action case is
bef ore us f or the secon d time , f ollowi ng the rema nd orde red in Schreib er v. Philips Display
Compon ent s Compan y , 580 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 200 9). In tha t ap p eal, w e rev iew ed the
district court’s decision dism issing the plaint if f s’ claims tha t the def end ant s brea ched bot h § 301 of the Lab or Mana geme nt Relation s Act (LMRA) and the ir f iduciary dut ies und er the
Em ployee Retirem ent Inco me Secu rity Act (ERISA) w hen the y ref used to provide life time

me dical insuran ce coverage f o r t h e plaint if f s, the ir f orme r em ployees. T he district court
held tha t the a pplicab le collective bargaining agreem ent (CBA) una mb iguously f ailed toNo. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.

v est retiree hea lthcare ben ef it s a n d tha t the loss of ben ef its did not imp licate the

em ployer’s f iduciary dut ies und er ERISA

. Our rev iew of the record suggested tha t relevant portio ns of the CBA could be seen as am biguous, and w e f aulte d the district court’s f ailure
to consid er the sum ma ry plan descript ions (SPDs) provided by the em ployer w hen parsing
the term s of the CBA. T he d is t ri c t c o urt had instea d treat ed the SPDs as “ex trinsic
evidence” unn ecessa ry to it s decision , in v iew of the CBA’s “plain language.” W e also question ed w het her the district court had ade quately rev iew ed the plaint if f s’ ERISA claim
and directe d th e co urt to expand its con siderat ion o f tha t claim

.

On rema nd, the district court hea rd testim ony, rev iew ed the SPDs in question , and again ent ered judgme nt in the def end ant s’ f avor, f inding (1) tha t the re w as no evidence of

an inten t to v est retiree hea lthcare ben ef its and , the ref ore, tha t the def end ant s w ere not obligated to provide life time me dical insuran ce coverage; (2) altern atively , tha t the plaint if f s

w ere not em ployees of the def end ant s at the time the y retired, but instea d w ere em ployees
of a successo r com pan y and , thu s, no longer eligible f or h e althca re ben ef its f orme rly provided by P hilips Display; a nd (3) tha t the ERISA claim w as bot h unsu bsta ntiat ed and
time -barred. W e f ind n o reversible error a nd af f irm. 1

“ O n a p p e a l f r o m a j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d f o l l o w i n g a b e n c h t r i a l , w e r e v i e w t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f a c t u a l 1 f i n d i n g s f o r c l e a r e r r o r a n d i t s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s d e n o v o

. ” P r e s s m a n v

. F r a n k l i n N a t

. B a n k , 3 8 4 F

. 3 d 1 8 2 , 1 8 5 ( 6 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 4 ) ( c i t i n g H a r r i s o n v

. M o n u m e n t a l

L i f e I n s

. C o

. , 3 3 3 F

. 3 d 7 1 7 , 7 2 1

- 2 2 ( 6 t h C i r

. 2 0 0 3 ) )

. A l t h o u g h t h e p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h i s i s t h e c o r r e c t s t a n d a r d f o r o u r r e v i e w , t h e y d i s a g r e e a s t o w h e t h e r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ’ s f i n d i n g s r e f l e c t e d f a c t u a l o r l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s

. B e c a u s e w e h o l d t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t j u d g e d i d n o t e r r r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w , w e n e e d n o t d e t e r m i n e w h a t s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w a p p l i e s

. - 2 -No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.
T he f acts giv ing rise to the issues in this app eal are set out in det ail in our initial
decision and nee d not be rest a t e d a t gr e a t length here

. Inste ad, our ma in f ocus at this poin t is on the add itiona l evidence add uced on rema nd, includin g the provisi ons of v arious

com pan y

SPDs a nd testim ony provided a t th e b ench trial in d istrict court.

In sum ma ry , the record shows tha t u n t il 200 1, def end ant Philips Display
Com pon ent s Com pan y (Philips Display) , a divi sion of def end ant Philips Electron ics North
Am erica Corporat ion (ref erred to in the rec o rd as PENAC) locate d in Otta w a, Ohio,

ma nuf actu red catho de ray tubes (CR T s) f or te levi sion sets. PENAC w as head quartered
in Ann Arbor and had set up def end ant Philips Access Cente r f or Em ployees (ref erred to
in the record as PACE) as an unin corpo rated entity to provi de adm inistrative serv ices fo r its v arious em ployee ben ef it plan s. In turn, PENAC w as a subsid iary of a Dutch com pan y , Kon inklijke Philips Electron ics, N.V. (ref erred to in the record by its transla ted nam e, Royal
Dutch Philips). In 200 1, Royal Dutch Philips me rg ed w ith a Korea n com pe titor, LG 2
Electron ics, to f orm a new com pan y called LG Philips Display Holding, B.V. , and relocat ed
its hea dquarte rs to Hong Kon g. T he hold ing co mp any in turn f orme d a new su bsidiary,
LG Philips Displays USA, Inc. (LG Philips), to com bine Philips Displays’ s f orme r television
CRT busin ess w ith LG’s ma nuf actu re of CRTs f o r m o n it o rs

. As part of the chan geover,

T h e r e c o r d r e f e r s v a r i o u s l y t o a “ m e r g e r , ” a “ j o i n t v e n t u r e , ” a n “ a c q u i s i t i o n , ” a n d a “ s a l e ” i n d e s c r i b i n g 2 t h e f o r m a t i o n o f L G P h i l i p s D i s p l a y H o l d i n g C o m p a n y

. A s a t e c h n i c a l m a t t e r , i t i s n o t c l e a r b y w h a t l e g a l m e a n s t h e n e w e n t i t y c a m e i n t o e x i s t e n c e

. A l t h o u g h t h e u p p e r m a n a g e m e n t w a s s p l i t e v e n l y b e t w e e n t h e f o r m e r e x e c u t i v e s o f t h e D u t c h a n d K o r e a n c o m p a n i e s , t h e h e a d q u a r t e r s o p e r a t i o n w a s m o v e d t o H o n g K o n g , a p p a r e n t l y b e c a u s e L G E l e c t r o n i c s h a d m a i n t a i n e d a s t r o n g A s i a n m a r k e t , a s o p p o s e d t o t h e s t r o n g E u r o p e a n m a r k e t t h a t R o y a l D u t c h P h i l i p s h a d e n j o y e d

. A c c o r d i n g t o o n e c o m p a n y e x e c u t i v e w h o t e s t i f i e d , t h e b u s i n e s s c u l t u r e i n e x i s t e n c e a f t e r t h e m e r g e r w a s “ e x t r e m e l y ” K o r e a n

. - 3 -No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. LG Philips assum ed the liabilities of the Otta w a plan t f orme rly owned b y

Ph ilips Display,
includin g the existing CBA. T he new com pan y began a s e p a ra te ope ration on July 1,
200 1, and – as of tha t dat e – Philips Display cea sed to exist. T h e re c o rd a lso suggests
tha t LG Elect ronics p aid $ 330 m illion f or th e Ot tawa plan t.

At t he time of

the m erger and resultin g fo rmat ion of LG Philips, hou rly em ployees
at the Otta w a plan t w orked und er a CBA tha t Philips Display had negot ia t e d wit h the
Inte rn a t io n a l Broth erho od of Electrical W orkers (the IBEW ). It too k ef f ect on Octob er 2,
200 0, and w as set to expire on Sep tem ber 28, 200 3. Beca use the ma rket f or CRTs w as alread y be ginning to sa g prior to th e n egotiatio ns in 200 0, P hilips Di splay let it b e kn own tha t it p lann ed to close the Otta w a plan t, prom pting the IBEW to b argain f or a mo re proem ployee retireme nt system , includ ing a guaran tee of vested re tiree h ealth care b ene f its
tha t w ould cont inue af

ter the plan t w as shut down. Philips Display repe ate dly rejecte d the
unio n’s life time -ben ef its prop osal, unt il the IBEW f inally drop ped the request. As a result,
life time hea lthcare ben ef its of the kind now claime d b y the plain tif

f s w ere n ot include d in
the cont ract, e xp licitly o r by im plication , as the district court f oun d in its origi nal opin ion.
Inste ad, the provisi on f or me dical insuran ce w as limited to tho se retirees w ho me t the eligibili ty criteria set out in the SPDs, w hich, und er the CBA, allowed the m to “p u rc h a se hea lth insuran ce coverage on the sam e term s and at the sam e em p lo ye e cont ribution
levels as in e f

f ect f or act iv e e mp loyees.”

- 4 -No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. Nor did the SPDs cont ain language tha t could be interp reted to create a rig ht to

v este d h e a lthcare ben ef its, altho ugh the pen sion plan s w ere, of course , v este d. T he

v arious insuran ce plan s required tha t an hou rly em ployee “[b]e eligible f or a com pan y
spon sored me dical plan imm edia tely prior to retirem ent ” in orde r to qualif y f or retiree hea lth
ben ef its. T he SPDs also provided tha t coverage w ould end w hen an em ployee lef t Philips Display, or oth erw ise be cam e ine lig ible f or be nef its, and w hen the plan w as te rmina ted

. T he SPDs a ls o c a rried a disclaim er: “Th e com pan y reserves the rig ht to charge f or

c o ve ra ge or to end or am end me dical coverage f or y ou or y our dep end ent s at any tim e subje ct to the provisions of the ap plicable collective ba rg aining agreem ent .”

T he SPD provisi ons f or salaried em ployees, mo st of w hom w ere locate d in Ann Arbor, carried the sam e prerequisite, i. e

. , tha t a retiring em ployee be “elig ible f or a

com pan y -spon sored me dical plan imm edia te ly prior to retirem ent ,” and it cont aine d a similar disclaim er: “Alt hou gh the com pan y prese ntly inten ds to cont inue the plan
inde f initely, Philips Electron ics No rth Am erican reserves the rig ht to alter any of its provisi ons, to chan ge the am oun t of cont ribution s or to term inate all or any part of it, as the

com pan y in its sole discretion dee ms nece ssary , w ithou t prior not ice to any covered
perso n.”

As com pare d to the rathe r imp erma nen t nat ure of the w elf are ben ef its, t h e CB A
called f or “life time ,” “v este d,” “non -f orf eitab le” pen sion ben ef its to be paid “as long as y ou li ve , ” “at the com pan y ’s expense .” As the def end ant s now poin t out , tha t lang u a ge

- 5 -No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. dem onst rates tha t the comp any and the unio n knew how to draf t language g uara nte eing
cont inue d ben ef its, but non e of the v esting language app ears in eithe r the CBA or the SPD provisi ons gov erning w elf are ben ef its. It is thu s clear f rom the record – desp ite testim ony by three or f our f orme r Philips Display em ployees tha t the y “believed” the ir me dical ben ef its

w ould continue for life – tha t the district court did not err in conclu ding tha t the parties to 3
the 200 0 CBA did not inten d to provide f or v este d me dical insuran ce coverage f or Philips Display r etiree s.

T he district court also held tha t the def end ant s had no obligation to the p laintif f s beca use, as f orme r em ployees, the y w ere not eligible f or retiree hea lth care ben ef its und er the term s of the SPDs. W hen the new pare nt corpo ration , LG Philips Holding, cam e into existence on July

1, 200 1, the Otta w a plant w as convey ed by Royal Philips to LG Philips Holding, and the hou rly w orkers in Otta w a and salaried w orkers in Ann Arbor beca me

em ployees of the hold ing com pan y ’s new subsid iary , LG Philips. T hey had bee n not if ied
of the sale and the imp end in g c h ange in ma nagem ent , and the y w ere also told tha t the
200 0 CBA w ould rema in in p lace and tha t LG Philips “w ould set up the sam e me dical plan s” previously provided by P hilips Display. As a result, the new L G Philips insuran ce plan s covered Otta w a em ployees w ho retired af ter July 1, 200 1, includin g all the hou rly and
salaried w orkers w h o a re plaint if f s in this case. Beca use the y w ere not “elig ible f or a

T h i s b e l i e f u n d o u b t e d l y s t e m m e d f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t P h i l i p s D i s p l a y h a d c o n t i n u e d t o c a r r y m e d i c a l 3 i n s u r a n c e f o r i t s r e t i r e e s l o n g a f t e r r e t i r e m e n t , e v e n t h o u g h t h e c o m p a n y c o u l d h a v e “ e n d [ e d ] o r a m e n d [ e d ] r e t i r e e m e d i c a l c o v e r a g e a t a n y t i m e ” u n d e r t h e t e r m s o f t h e p l a n s

. A t l e a s t o n e f o r m e r P h i l i p s D i s p l a y e m p l o y e e w h o t e s t i f i e d a t t h e b e n c h t r i a l w a s s t i l l r e c e i v i n g h e a l t h c a r e b e n e f i t s a s a r e s u l t o f h i s r e t i r e m e n t p r i o r t o J u l y 1 , 2 0 0 1

. - 6 -No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. Philips spon sored me dical plan imm edia tely prior to retirem ent ,” as required by the Philips Display S P Ds , t hey w ere no longer eligible f or the retiree ben ef its f orme rly provided by Philips Display, altho ugh the y w ere covered by the equiv alen t LG Philips insuran ce
coverage f or retirees. Ind eed , as the district court f o u n d , the plaint if f s – no longer

em ployees of Philips Display af ter July 1, 200 1 – actu ally retired f rom LG Philips but w ere try ing to esta blish eligibili ty und er the Philips Display insuran ce plan s tha t w ere no longer
app licable t o th em

. 4

G iv en the evidence in the record, w e conclu de tha t the district court did n o t e rr in
hold ing tha t Philips Display w as und er no f urthe r obligation to provide hea lthcare ben ef its
to the plaint if

f s. In reach ing tha t decision , the district court rejecte d the plaint if f s’ cont ent ion
tha t Philips Display w as LG Philips’s alter ego “in rev erse,” ma king Philips Display, as the pred ecesso r com pan y , som eho w liable f or th e o bligations u nde rtaken by LG P hilips, th e

successo r com pan y

. T he plaint if f s argued belo w – and rene w ed the argume nt on app eal

– “that LG Philips, USA, Inc. (LGP), upo n its July 1, 200 1 acquisition of the Otta w a f acility
and Ann Arbor of

f ice, acte d as an alter ego f or the Def end a n t s

. ” T hey the n explained , correctly, tha t the alter ego doct rine w ill “bind a new em ployer tha t cont inue s the ope ration

A s n o t e d a b o v e , b e c a u s e o f t h e l a c k o f d e m a n d f o r t e l e v i s i o n C R T s , P h i l i p s D i s p l a y h a d a l r e a d y 4
a n n o u n c e d i t s i n t e n t i o n t o s h u t d o w n t h e O t t a w a p l a n t t h e y e a r b e f o r e i t w a s s o l d t o L G P h i l i p s a n d h a d a g r e e d , a s p a r t o f t h e C B A n e g o t i a t i o n s i n 2 0 0 0 , t o m a i n t a i n e m p l o y m e n t o f 8 0 0 h o u r l y w o r k e r s d u r i n g t h e t e r m o f t h e n e w C B A , e v e n i f t h e p l a n t c l o s e d

. A f t e r t h e s a l e , L G P h i l i p s d e c i d e d t o m o v e t h e i r C R T o p e r a t i o n t o a n e w f a c t o r y i n M e x i c o

. T h e O t t a w a p l a n t c l o s e d i n D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 2 , b u t t h e h o u r l y w o r k e r s w e r e p a i d w a g e s a n d r e c e i v e d b e n e f i t s u n d e r t h e C B A u n t i l S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 3

. A f t e r t h a t d a t e , f o r m e r P h i l i p s D i s p l a y e m p l o y e e s w h o h a d r e t i r e d p r i o r t o J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 1 , c o n t i n u e d t o r e c e i v e t h e i r p e n s i o n a n d i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s f r o m P h i l i p s D i s p l a y

. T h o s e r e t i r i n g a f t e r t h a t d a t e , i n c l u d i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n t h i s c a s e , r e c e i v e d p e n s i o n a n d i n s u r a n c e b e n e f i t s t h r o u g h L G P h i l i p s
– u n t i l L G P h i l i p s w e n t b a n k r u p t i n 2 0 0 6

. - 7 -No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. of an old em ployer in tho se cases w here the ne w e m ployer is ‘me rely a disguised
cont inua nce of

the old em ployer.’” NLRB v. Fullerton T ransfe r & Storag e, Ltd. , 910 F.2d
331 , 336 (6th Cir. 1 990 ) (q uot ing Sou thp ort Pet ro le u m, Co. v. NLRB , 315 U.S. 100 , 106 (194 2)). But, it doe s not fo llow that the doct rine ope rates in rev erse, i.e. , tha t it w ill ma ke
the old em ployer liable f or the obligation s of the new em ployer, as the plaint if f s w ould have
us do in this case. T hey have cited no autho rity that w ould require such a result, and w e know of no ne.

Moreo ve r, the district court ana ly z ed the evidence in the record and correctly
det ermin ed tha t the LG P h ilips w as not the alter ego of Philips Display, giv en tha t the
chan geover involv ing tho se tw o entities w as only a sm all pa rt of a global transactio n that
create d a new hold ing com pan y com bining som e 36, 000 em ployees and over 25 f acto ries.
Af ter the chan geover, LG Philips mo v ed its ope ration to Mex ico, closed down the of f ices
in Ann Arbor, and no longer ma nuf actu red CRTs f or televisions. Obviously , LG Philips w as not a “disguised cont inua nce” of Philips Display – in short orde r, the Otta w a plan t beca me

mo re nea rly a ghost ope ration , w ith som e 800 non -w orking em ployees collecting pay and
ben ef its and w aiting f or the existing CBA to expire bef ore retiring. Altho ugh it i s not clear
f rom the record, w e a ssum e th at t hey the n rece iv ed retiree h ealth care ben ef its f rom LG Philips unt il tha t com pan y decla red ban kruptcy in 200 6, prom pting the m to seek coverage f rom the ir f orme r em ployer.

- 8 -No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.
T he di s t ri c t court also held tha t the def end ant s had not brea ched the ir f iduciary
dut ies u n d e r ERISA

. T he plaint if f s claime d tha t PENAC and PACE f ailed to com ply wi th
ERISA proce dure s in te rm in ating the retirees’ hea th care ben ef its as of July 1, 200 1.
How ever, the district court f oun d on the me rits tha t the em ployees had received p ro per not ice and com plete inf orm a t io n abo ut the term inatio n of Philips Display’ s insuran ce
coverage and the obligat io n s tha t LG Philips assum ed at the time of the transf er. T he
court also held tha t beca use the plaint if f s had this inf orma tion in m id -2 0 0 1 , t h eir ERISA
claims w ere time -barred. T hose claims w ere set out in a com plaint tha t w as not f iled unt il
Janu ary 200 7. Unde r ERISA ’s statu te of limitat ion gov erning claims f or non -f raud ulen t
brea ch of f iduciary dut y , howev er, an acti o n m u s t b e brou ght w ithin six y ears af ter the
purp orted v iolation or om ission or w ithin three y ears of t h e dat e on w hich a plaint if f had knowledge of the alleged brea ch, w hiche v er com es f irst. 29 U.S.C. § 111 3. In orde r to be
time ly , the claims shou ld have bee n f iled by July 200 4 and , the ref ore, the district court did
not err in h olding th at t hey w ere t ime -barred.

For the reaso ns se t ou t ab ove, w e A FFIRM the judgme nt o f the district co urt.

- 9 -No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.
KA REN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, diss enting in part. T his case prese nts

an opp ortun ity to app ly our w ell esta blished inten t-to-vest doct rine in orde r to det ermin e the key le gal issue raised in this app eal: w het her the partie s inten ded f or retiree hea lth
ben ef its to v est und er th e co llectiv e b argaining agreem ent (“CBA”) ente red in to b etween
th e now-r etired em ployees and the def end ant s. Unlike ma ny of our prior cases in this

area , the o p e ra t ive docu me nts dictat ing the term s of retirem ent hea lth ben ef its w ere

som ewhat in f lux during the time period w hen the se individuals retired, in the mid st of the
f orma tion of

a jo int ventu re be tw een the ir emp loyer and an intern ation al m anu f actu rer.

W hen the se extraneo us f acts conce rning the joint v ent ure are s t ri p p e d away , howev er, it is clear tha t und er our inten t-to-vest doct rine, the partie s inten ded f or the retiree
hea lth ben ef its to v est und er the CBA. T h e m a jo rity ’s ana ly sis, w hich results in den y ing
the retirees t h e b e n ef its to w hich the y are ent itled, dep end s upo n the se negligi ble and
imm ate rial incon sistencie s arising in conju nction w ith the joint v ent ure. Unde r basic
cont ract principles, tho ugh, the de f end ant s rem ain b oun d a s signatories to the CBA and
shou ld not be all o we d t o e scape liability as a result of circulating and rely ing upo n illconst ructed do cum ent s in co njun ction w ith th e join t venture

.

Altho ugh I disagree w it h the ma jority ’s conclu sion on the claims base d on brea ch
of con tract, I con cur on the f iduciary-duty claim. I the ref ore resp ectf ully dissen t in p art.

- 10

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.
I. BA CKGROUND

Retired em ployees of LG Philips Displays USA, Inc. (“LG P h il ip s ”), alon g w ith

surv iv ing spou ses and dep end ent s (collectiv ely, the “retiree class”), brou ght a class action against Philips Display Com pon ent s Com pan y (“Philips Display” ), the origi nal em ployer of
the retiree class; Philips Elect r on i c s N orth Am erica Corporat ion (“PENAC”), the corpo ration
of w hich Philips Di splay is a div ision; and Philips Person al Access C ent er fo r Em ployees (“PACE”), the ent ity tha t perf orme d ben ef its adm inistration f or Philips Display and LG Philips. T he retiree class is divi ded into tw o gr oup s f or the purp ose of this app eal—th ose

w ho w orked as hou rly , unio nized em ployees at an Otta w a, Ohio f acility (“hourly retirees”)
and tho se w ho w orked as salaried , non -union iz ed em ployees in the Philips Display
hea dquarte rs in Ann Arbor, Michig an (“salaried re t ir e es”). Every me mb er of the retiree
class retired on or af

ter July 1, 200 1, the dat e on w hich PENAC’s pa re nt com pan y , Kon inklijke Philips Electron ics, N.V. (“Roy al Dutch ”), and LG Electron ics f orme d th e joint

v ent ure LG Philips Display Holding, B.V. , w hich the n create d the subsid iary LG Philips. Jt.
Ex. 41.

On Octob er 2, 200 0, Philips Display and the Inte rnatio nal Broth erho od of Electrical
W orkers (“IBEW ”), the unio n represe nting the hou rly em ployees of Philips Display, ent ered
into a CBA. J t

. E x. 4

. T he CBA provided f or hea lth ben ef its f or active em ployees and retirees, and the det ails of each plan w ere set f orth in sum ma ry plan descript ions (“SPDs”).
Id. at 121 –22

. T he relevant SPDs in this app eal are the Basic/Majo r Medical Plan and the

- 11

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. Com preh ensive Medical Plan

. Jt. Exs. 8–9

. T he Otta w a f acility closed on Decem ber 31,
200 2, and the CBA expired on Sep tem ber 28, 200 3. Jt. Ex. 4. Retiree h e a lt h b e n e f it s

w ere provided to the retirees unt il May 31, 200 6, w hen the def end ant s t e rm inate d the
ben ef its of

ea ch class me mb er. Jt . Ex. 22

.

Sho rtly af

ter the term inatio n of retiree hea lth ben ef its, the hou rly and salaried
retirees f iled an action in f ede ral court seekin g dam ages and decla ratory a n d injunct iv e relief tha t w ould require the def end ant s to provide retiree h e a lt h ben ef its to the retiree class, and to reimbu rse the retiree cl ass fo r any costs incurred as a result of def end ant s’
f ailure to provide such ben ef its. Spe cif ically , the hou rly retirees allege brea ch of the CBA
in cont rav ent ion of the Lab or Mana geme nt Relation s A c t (“ LMRA”) and the Em ployee
Re t ir e m e n t Inco me Secu rity Act of 197 4 (“ERISA”), and the hou rly and salaried retiree s allege brea ch of f idu c ia ry d uty und er ERISA

. Beca use I concu r on the f iduciary- dut y claim, I w ill f ocus this ana ly sis on docu me nts relate d to the hou rly retirees’ brea ch-of

cont ract claim

.

In Schreib er v. Phillips [sic] Display Compon ent s Co. (“Schreiber I” ) , No. 07-1 024 6,
200 7 W L 303 674 3 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 16, 200 7), the district court gr a n t e d the def end ant s’

mo tion f or sum ma ry judgme nt on each claim. W e the n gr ant ed t h e re tirees’ app eal in
Schreib er v. Philips Display Compon ent s Co. (“Schreiber II” ) , 580 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 200 9),

a n d rema nde d the case, directing the district court to consid er the SPDs in det ermin in g

w het her the def end ant s inten ded to v est ben ef its. On rema nd, the district court conclu ded

- 12

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. tha t the CBA and the SPDs did n o t ve s t li f etim e hea lth ben ef its f or any em ployee w ho
retired on or af

ter July 1, 200 1, and tha t the retiree class w as ineligible to receive such
ben ef its, an issue previously unre ache d. Schr e ib er v. Philips Display Compon ent s Co. (“Schreiber III”) , 692 F. Sup p. 2d 747 , 758 –61 (E.D. Mich. 201 0). Add itiona lly , the district
court conclu ded tha t th e f iduciary-duty claim w as tim e-ba rred. Id. at 761 –62

.

II. DEFENDA NTS’ LIA BILITY

A significan t prelimin ary issue in this case is w het her the def end ant s rema in liable
und er the CBA. T he retiree class of f ers tw o the ories und er w hich it argues the def end ant s

are liable. First, the retiree class cont end s tha t the def end ant s are liable und er a rev erse alter ego the ory

. T he district court agreed w ith the def end ant s, howev er, conclu ding tha t
the retiree class did not provide suf f icient evidence to supp ort use of this the ory

. Schreib er III , 692 F. Sup p. 2d at 758

. Seco nd, and m o re imp ortan tly , the retiree class argues tha t

as the signatory to the CBA, the def end ant s rema in liable even af ter purp orted ly assigning
the cont ract to LG Philips. App ellant s Br. at 25. T he def end ant s coun ter tha t the y cease d
bein g liable und er the CBA w hen the y no longer em ployed the retiree class. App ellees Br.

a t 3 1–3 2. Despite the f act tha t this the ory of liability w as plea ded in the retire e c la s s ’s

com plaint and raised at all stages of the proce edin gs belo w , the district c o u rt did not
add ress it in its orde r resolvi ng the actio n.

Unde r esta blished cont ract principles, the signatory em ployer rema ins bou nd by a CBA even if the em ployer has assigned the CB A t o ano the r em ployer. R E S T A T E M E N T - 13

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. (S E C O N D ) O F C O N T R A C T S § 318 (3) (1 9 8 1) (“Unless the obligee agrees oth erw ise, neith er dele gation of perf orma nce nor a cont ract to assum e the dut y ma de w ith the obligor by the
perso n dele gated discha rg es any dut y or liability of the dele ga t in g obligor.”); see also
Ada m s v. A vond ale I ndu s., In c. , 90 5 F.2 d 9 43, 954 (6th Cir. 199 0) (app rov ing the use of § 318 (3) in the ERISA cont ext). A s state d in W illiston on Contra cts, “[a]lth ough an

em ployer’s dut y to bargain collectively over the term s and cond itions of em ploymen t end s if it cease s doin g busin ess and thu s is no longer the em ployer of the w orkers in a particu lar bargaining unit, it rema ins bou nd by the executory term s o f a n y pree x isting collective bargaining agreem ent

. . . .” 20 W I L L I S T O N O N C O N T R A C T S § 55: 19 (4th ed. ); see also Int’ l Oil, Ch em

. & Ato m ic W orkers, Loca l 7-51 7 v. Uno-Ve n Co. , 170 F.3d 779 , 781 (7th Cir.
199 9) (sam e). I n o the r w ords, an em ployer rema ins liable on a CB A u nless t he cont ract expressly provi d e s f o r the discha rg e of the se liabilities or a novation is f orme d.
R E S T A T E M E N T (S E C O N D ) O F C O N T R A C T S § 318 (3), cmt

. d (“ An obligor is discha rg ed by the
subst itution of a new obligor only if the cont ra c t s o provides or if the obligee ma kes a bind ing ma nif esta tion of asse nt, f ormin g a no v ation .”).

App ly ing t hese principles, I w ould conclu de tha t the def end ant s re m a in b o und as signatories to the CBA. T here is no evidence in the record of eithe r a d is c h a rg e of 1
def end ant s f rom the CBA or of an assen t by LG Phi lips in the f orm of a novation

. T he

T he ma jority det ermin ed tha t the district court did n o t c o m m it any errors, even 1 und er a de novo stan dard of rev iew

. I w ill the ref ore also em ploy de novo re vie w of the district cou rt orde r. - 14

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. district court thu s erred in f ailing to consid er w het her the def end ant s retain li ability as signatories to the CBA. Beca use the def end ant s re t a in liability , it is unn ecessa ry to
cont em plate the ap plicability of the reverse alter e go the oryto this ca se.

III. ELIGI BILITY FOR BENEFITS

A secon d prelimin ary issue is w het her the me mb ers of the retiree class, each having
retired as an em ployee of LG Philips, ar e e ve n e lig ible und er the term s of the CBA to
receive retiree hea lth ben ef its. T he CBA provides tha t “[e]m ployees w ho retire on or af ter
Janu ary 1, 199 8, w ho are at least age f if ty- f iv e (55) and w ho me et the term s of the existing plan are e n t it le d to purch ase hea lth insuran ce coverage on the sam e term s and at the

sam e em ployee cont ribution levels as in ef f ect f or active em ployees.” Jt. Ex. 4 at 56. T he
district court interp reted the “ex isting plan ” to be eithe r the Basic/Majo r Medical Plan or the
Com preh ensive Medical Plan , w hiche v er is app licable to the individual retiree. Schreib er III , 692 F. Sup p. 2d at 759

. Ea ch o f the se S PDs explains t hat an em ployee is e lig ible to participa te in the Retiree Medical Plan if h e o r s h e h as a min imu m of f if tee n y ears of eligibili ty serv ice, as def ined in the pen sion plan ; begins receivi ng pen sion ben ef its; and
is eligible to receive a com pan y -spon sored me dical plan prior to retirem ent

. Jt. Ex. 8 at 15;
Jt. Ex. 9 at 14 . T he district court the n reaso ned tha t the hou rly retirees w ere not eligible
to participa te in t h e Re tiree Medical Plan beca use the y w ere not eligible to receive a

me dical p lan sp onso red b y PENA C prior to retirem ent

. Schreib er III , 692 F. Su pp. 2d at
759

. T his conclu sion is base d on the district court’s det ermin ation tha t the hou rly retirees

- 15

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.

w ere no longer em ployees o f P hilips at the time of the ir ret ireme nt, and , the ref ore, w ere not eligible to receive a me dical plan spon sored by P ENA C. Id. In f urthe r supp ort of its positio n, the district court poin ted to language in the SPDs providing t h a t t h e plan
term inate s w hen em ployees lea v e th e co mp any. Id.

T he district court’s ana ly sis, howev er, ma kes un s u b s t ant iated assum ption s and disregards critical det ails in the SPDs. T o b egin, th e d istrict court’s a nalysis is based on the assu mp tion tha t the term “comp any” in the phra se “comp any-sponso red plan ” ref ers to a PENAC-spo nsore d plan f or em ployees of Philips Display. T he district court doe s not
of f er any supp ort f or this interp retat ion of the term “comp any,” and the re is not hing w ithin
the SPDs su ppo rting such a de f inition. Rathe r, I w ould submit tha t the p lain lan guage in
the SPDs supp orts read ing t he phra se to ref er to the com pan y at w hich the em ployee is

em ployed prior to his reti re m e n t

. I n add ition to bein g the com mo n-sen se read ing, the

c o n t ra c t ing partie s chose the term “comp any” rathe r tha n Philips or PENAC, w hich the y opt ed f or in oth er provisi ons of the SPDs. S e e , e

. g

. , Jt. Ex. 8 at 17 (“Y ou w ill b e able to
app ly the am oun t of time covered und er the Philips Plan towards any pre-existing me dical
cond ition exclusion period at ano the r plan

. . . .”); Jt. Ex. 9 at 15 (same ). Moreover, neith er SPD def ines the term “comp any,” let alon e “comp any-sponso red plan .” If Philips Display
had w ant ed to limit the se SPDs to tho se ind iv idua ls em ployed a t Ph ilips Display, it knew
how to d raf

t such langua ge.

- 16

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.
W ithou t this basis, the di s t ri c t court’s ana ly sis quickly unra v els. If the term “comp any” describe s the com pan y at w hich the retirees w ere em ployed w hen the y retired,

as such a general term w ould seem to indicat e, the n the retiree class is clearly eligible f or retiree ben ef its. Each of the mem bers of the r etiree cl ass w as insured prior to retiring as

an LG Philips em ployee, und er a plan spon sored at le a s t in part by LG Philips, placing
the m squarely w ithin the def inition of tho se eligible f or a com pan y -spon sored plan

. T here
is no evidence suggesting tha t LG Philips spon sored any oth er plan available to the retiree

c la ss during this sam e time period

. Giv en the imp ortan ce of this term , such a n

unsu bsta ntiat ed assum ption is a critical f law in b oth the district court’s and the m ajority’ s

reaso ning.

Even if the term “comp any” w ere an explicit ref eren ce to Philips Display or PENAC,
the retiree class w ould still rema in eligible t o re c e iv e hea lth ben ef its. As the record
dem onst rates, in practice it app ears tha t an em ployee did not have to be an em ployee of Philips Display in orde r to receive a me dical plan tha t PENAC spon sored

. In oth er w ords,

w het h e r t h e re tirees w ere em ployees of Philips Display at the time of retirem ent and

w het her the y w ere eligible to receive a me dical plan spon sored by P E NA C a re d ist inct inquiries. T here is evidence dem onst rating tha t PENAC and PA CE re m a in ed closely
in vo lved in the adm inistration of the hea lth plan s available to the em ployees tha t we re
t ra n s f e rr ed to LG Philips. Jt. Exs. 12, 17. Af ter July 1, 200 1, f or examp le, PENAC

rema ined the Plan Adm inistrato r on the plan s utiliz ed by the retiree class. Jt. Exs. 41– 42.

- 17

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. In f act, the application form r equired to enroll i n a retiree hea th ben ef its plan af ter July 1,
200 1, p romin ent ly

f eat ured PENA C’s nam e. Jt. E x s. 17 , 54

.
Moreover, in i ts Im pl em en ta ti on Ag r ee me nt , LG Philips directe d em ployees plan ning
to retire during certain period s prior to the expiration of the CBA to arrange f or pen sion and
hea lth ben ef its throu gh PACE, w hich w as perf ormin g the adm inistrative dut ies of the plan s und er a serv ice agreem ent w ith LG Philips. Jt. Ex. 12 at 2–3

. Unde r this schem e, PACE
evaluate d the e li gi b il it y of tho se w ho app lied f or retiree hea lth ben ef its, and w hen
app rov ed, the retirees received the se ben ef its throu gh PACE. Id. PACE cont inue d in this
role unt il Janu ary 1, 200 6. Unde r the se f acts, the def end ant s spon sored the plan s by
carry ing out and adm inistering the retirees’ receipt of ben ef its. Giv en tha t P E NA C

rema ined an adm inistrative spon sor of the plan s, e ve n af ter the purp orted transf er of
ben ef its occurred , the retiree class w as eligible at the ti m e of retirem ent f or a plan
spon sored by PENAC. T he district cou rt’s conclu sion o the rw ise is error.

Alterna tive ly, if it is accep ted tha t the def end ant s cease d spon soring the retiree
hea lth plans o n Ju ly

1, 200 1, a nd tha t the term “comp any” specif ically r ef eren ces Philips
Di s p la y or PENAC, the retiree class w ould not be ineligible f or the se ben ef its. A s discusse d abo v e, the district court’s ana ly sis dep end s hea v ily on the language in the SPDs requiring the retiree to be eligible f or a com pan y -spon sored plan prior to retirem ent

. If the
district court w ere correct, tho ugh, in conclu ding tha t LG Philips obt aine d new hea lth plan s, albe it one s tha t mirrored tho se provi ded by Philips Display, the language in the se new

- 18

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. plan s presu ma bly w ould not include a clause requiring , or interp reted as requir in g, LG Philips em ployees to be em plo ye e s o f P h ilips Display up on retirem ent

. In oth er w ords, 2
the def end ant s cann ot have it bot h w ays. T hey cann ot a rg ue tha t th ey discontin ued the Philips Display plan s on July 1, 200 1, in an atte mp t to evade direct liability , y et also rely
upo n the language in th e S P Ds f o r t h ese plan s in an atte mp t to rend er the retiree class ineligible f or be nef its. A ppe llees B r. at 28, 31

.

T his cont radicto ry argume nt prese nte d by t h e def end ant s is not only logically
unt ena ble, but also base d on a v ague and conf using pap er trail of the ir own m a k in g. Beca use LG Philip s d id not provide new SPDs w hen it purp orted ly ena cted the se new plan s, the re is no language f or the retiree class to rely on w hen ma king such an argume nt. 3
LG Philips and the def end ant s issued docu me nts arou nd the time of the joint v ent ure indicat ing tha t LG Philips w ould esta b li s h the sam e me dical plan s as tho se tha t the

T his logic similarly app lies to the clause in the SPDs term inatin g coverage w hen 2 the e m p lo ye e leaves the com pan y

. As em ployees of LG Philips covered und er an LG Philips plan , the retiree class w ould not have lef t the com pan y to w hich the plan ref ers, and this arg um ent asserted by the def end ant s w ould be a non starte r. As w ith the “comp anys pon sored plan ” language, read ing this language to ref er only to Philips Display is non sensica l. T he ma jority opin ion add s to the conf usion by ref e re n c in g the “leavi ng the com pan y ” provisi on by statin g tha t the plan termin ate s w hen an emplo y ee leaves Philips Display. LG Philips issued its own SPDs in 200 5, w hich is w ell past the time period relevant 3 to this app eal. Jt. Exs. 18– 19. T he language in the se plan s is instructive, tho ugh, as the eligibili ty language requires tha t an em ployee be eligible f or a com pan y -spon sored hea lthcare plan

. T he f act tha t the sam e language is used in the se SPDs, y et ref eren ces LG Philips rathe r tha n Philips Display, lend s supp ort to the in terpret ation tha t the term “comp any” is inten ded to me an the com pan y f rom w hich t he em ployee ret ires. - 19

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.

em ployees w ere part of w hen the y w ere em ployed by Philips Display. Jt. Ex. 41 at 2. LG Philips also instructe d the em ployees to f ill out dif f eren t claim f orms af

ter the joint v ent ure and to use a dif

f eren t plan num ber. Jt. Ex. 46. Despite the s e in s t ru c t io n s, tho ugh, LG Philips never circulated , or perh aps even create d, the SPDs f or the se new plan s. T his
f a ilu re by LG Philips and the def end ant s to ef f ectu ate prop erly the transitio n of h e a lt h
ben ef its f or the se em ployees v is-a-v is the joint ve n t u re s hou ld not preclud e the retiree
class f rom receivi ng the ben ef its to w hich the y are due

. Eithe r LG Philips ena cted a new plan , und er w hich the language mo st certain ly ref ers to LG Philips as opp osed to PENAC

or Philips Display, or the def end ant s’ plan w a s re t a in e d af ter the joint v ent ure, in w hich

case the retiree class was eligi ble f or a plan spo nsore d b y Ph ilips Display or PENAC.

Unde r each set of assum ption s upo n w hich one could rely in interp re t in g t he ineligibility provisi on in the SPDs, the ana ly sis results in eligibili ty f or retiree hea lth ben ef its.
I w ould the ref ore rev erse the district court’s det ermin ation tha t the retiree class is ineligible
to re ceive these be nef its.

IV. INTENT TO V EST

Havi ng det ermin ed tha t the retiree class is eligible f or retiree hea lth ben e f it s f rom the d e f e n d a n t s , I now turn to w het her the def end ant s inten ded to v est the se as life time
ben ef its. “If the partie s inten d f or w elf are ben ef its to v est and the agreem ent to tha t ef f ect
is brea ched , the re is an ERISA v iolation as w ell as an LMRA v iolation .” Ben der v. New ell

- 20

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.
W indo w Furnishing s, Inc. , 681 F.3d 253 , 26 1 (6th Cir. 201 2). W e mu st f irst look to the 4 language of the CBA to det ermin e w het her the retiree h e a lth ben ef its v este d. See Cole

v. Arvinm eritor, Inc. , 549 F.3d 106 4, 107 0 (6th Cir. 200 8) (“W e mu st f irst assess the explicit language of the CBAs and app ly basic principles of cont ract in t e rp re tatio n.”) (interna l quotat ion ma rks om itted ). If the language in the CBA is am biguous, w e ma y look to
extri nsic evidence in orde r to discern the inten t of the partie s. See Int’ l Union, UAW v. BVR Liqu idatin g, Inc. , 190 F.3d 768 , 772 (6th Cir

. 1 9 9 9 ) (“[A] court shou ld consid er extri nsic
evidence only w hen the term s of the cont ract are am biguous. ”); Cole , 549 F.3d at 106 9 (“A
court ma y f ind v este d rig hts und er a CBA ev en if the inten t to v est has not bee n explicitly
set out in the agreem ent .”) (interna l quotat ion ma rks o m it t ed). For the reaso ns state d
belo w , I conclu de tha t the CBA, read in c o n ju n ction w ith the SPD provisi ons, v este d
life time retiree hea lth b ene f its.

“[T] he enf orcem ent and interp re tatio n of collective bargaining agreem ent s is
gov erne d by traditio nal rules of cont ract interp retat ion so long as the ir app lication doe s not
conf lict w ith f ede ral labo r policy.” Cincinna ti Typog raph ical Union No.3 v. Gan net t Sat ellite
Info rm ation Netw ork, Inc. , 17 F.3d 906 , 909 (6th Cir. 199 4). “Th eref ore, w e might conclu de
the partie s inten ded a rig ht to v est if w e are shown cont ract language or extri nsic evidence
to supp ort tha t conclu sion.” Id. at 910

. Parties ma y cont ract to include life time ben ef its in

Schreib er II apt ly sum ma riz es the requisite legal stan dard s f or such v iolation s, and 4 the re is no nee d to repe at it here

. I w ill i n s t e ad f ocus on the app lication of our inten t-tov est d octrine in th is Sect ion. - 21

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.

a CBA, even if the se ben ef its w ill out last t h e li f e o f the CBA, as “[g]eneral dura tiona l provisi ons only ref er to the length of the CBAs and not the period of time cont em plate d f or retiree ben ef its. Abse nt specif ic dura tiona l language ref erring to retiree ben ef its
the mse lv es, courts have held tha t the general du ra t io n a l language says not hing abo ut
tho se retiree ben ef its.” Cole , 549 F.3d at 107 1 (interna l quotat ion ma rks om itted ). “[W ]hile
the retirem ent packa ge available to som eon e cont em platin g retirem ent w ill chan ge w ith the expiration and ado ption of CBAs,

. . . s o m e o ne alread y retired und er a particu lar CBA
cont inue s to receive the ben ef its provided the rein desp ite the expiration of the agreem ent
itself .” W

ood v. Detroit Diesel Corp. , 607 F.3d 427 , 433 (6th Cir. 201 0) (interna l quotat ion

ma rks om itted ) (alteratio ns in origi nal). W e have explained tha t retiree hea lth care ben ef its

v est at retirem ent “b e c a u s e it w ould be unf air to allow f utu re agreem ent s bet w een the

em ployer and the unio n to redu ce the pen sion ben ef its of retirees w hen neith er the unio n nor t he em ployer is required to represe nt t hose retirees. ” Id. at 434

.

Af ter analyz ing the C BA and the SPDs, the district court conclu ded tha t the re w as

no inten t to v est life time ben ef its. It base d this det ermin ation on the reservation-of -rig hts
clause , a w eake r conn ection to pen sion ben ef its tha n in prior cases, and a lack of explicit language in the CBA v esting life time ben ef its. Schreib er III , 692 F. Sup p. 2d at 759– 61.
How ever, the district court downplays the imp ortan ce of the relation ship bet w een pen sion eligibili ty and retiree hea lth insuran ce ben ef its. It is w ell esta blished und er our prece den t
tha t “language in an agreem ent tha t ties eligibili ty f or retiree hea lth ben ef its to eligibili ty f or

a pen sion indicat es an inten t to v est the hea lth ben ef its.” Noe v. PolyOn e Corp. , 520 F.3d
- 22

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. 548 , 558 (6th Cir. 200 8). In f act, w hen an ag reem ent “ ties elig ibility for retireme nt-he alth
ben ef its to e lig ibility f or a pen sion

. . . the re is little room f or deb ate tha t retirees’ hea lth
ben ef its v este d upo n retirem ent .” McCoy v. Meridian Aut o. Sys., Inc. , 390 F.3d 417 , 422 (6th Cir. 200 4). Altho ugh the district court only ackno w ledges one , the SPDs plainly tie tw o

o f the three eligibili ty requireme nts to an em ployee’s eligibili ty f or a pen sion. T he SPDs explain tha t in orde r to receive retiree hea lth ben ef its, an em ployee mu st “[h]a v e 15 y ears of eligibili ty serv ice, as def ined in the com pan y ’s pen sion plan

. . . [an d be] receivi ng
pen sion b ene f its or h ave received a lum p su m distribut ion o f the en tire pe nsion .” Jt. Ex.
8 at 15; Jt. Ex. 9 at 14. It is und ispute d tha t pen sions in this case are a life time ben ef it and
tha t th ey v este d f or th ose em ployees who retired un der t he CBA.

T he district court’s atte mp t at distinguishing this case f rom our p re c e d e n t is
unp ersua siv e. Despite a bod y of case law tea ching tha t w hen an agreem ent ties eligibili ty
f or retiree ben ef its to eligibili ty f or a pen sion the inten t is to v est life time ben ef its, the district
court once again latche s on to a tech nicality, statin g tha t inten t co u ld not be inf erred
beca use no prior case had fou nd such an inten t w hen pension elig ibility w as not the only eligibili ty requireme nt. Schreib er III , 692 F. Sup p. 2d at 760

. In essen ce, the district court
take s a n e stab lished doct rine tha t dictat es f inding an inten t to v est in this case and

mu ddie s it by raising an imm ate rial and incon sequen tial distinctio n. T he third requireme nt,
tha t an em ployee be eligible f or a com pan y -spon sored me dical plan prior to retirem ent , in

no w ay cuts against the inten t to v est the se ben ef its and its prese nce, the ref ore, doe s not
det ract f rom tyi ng of

eligibility

to the pe nsion

.

- 23

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. Add itio n a ll y, our case law has develope d an inf eren ce tha t partie s inten d to v est
life time retiree ben ef its: “retiree ben ef its are in a sense ‘statu s’ ben ef its w hich, as such,
carry w ith the m an inf eren ce

. . . tha t the partie s likely inten ded tho se ben ef its to cont inue

as long as the ben ef iciary rema ins a retiree.” Int’ l Union, UAW v. Yard-Man , Inc. , 716 F.2d
147 6, 148 2 (6th Cir. 198 3 ). T h is is n ot a legal presu mp tion, and it doe s not shif t the
burd en of proo f ; rathe r, this inf eren ce “simply guide[s] courts f aced w ith the task of
discernin g the in ten t of the pa rties.” Golde n v. Kelse y-Hayes Co. , 73 F.3d 64 8, 6 56 (6th
Cir. 1 996 ). T his inf eren ce, coup led w ith the eligibili ty requirem ent s, is suff ic ie nt to show

an inten t to vest und er ou r esta blished do ctrine.

T he district court also atte mp ts to distin gu is h t h is case by rely ing upo n the

re s e rv ation -of -rig hts clause in the SPDs. In so doin g, tho ugh, the district court om it t e d
crucial language in the clause

. Base d on this truncat ed v ersion of the clause, the district
court reaso ned tha t Philips Display could term inate retiree ben ef its at any t ime

. Spe cif ically , the district court reaso ned tha t “[t]he SPDs clearly reserve the c om pan y ’s ‘rig ht
to cha rge f or coverage or to end or am end me dical coverage

. . . at any time

. . . .’”
Schreib er III , 692 F. Sup p. 2d at 760 (q uot ing Jt. Ex . 8 at 17; Jt. Ex. 9 at 16) (alteratio n in origi nal). T he com plete reservation-of -rig hts clause , howev er, include s a critical limitat ion:
“Th e com pan y reserves the rig ht to charge f or coverage or to end or a m e n d me dical
coverage f or y ou or y our dep end ent s at any time subje ct to the provisi ons of the app licable collective bargaining agreem ent .” Jt. Ex. 8 at 17 ; Jt. Ex. 9 at 16

.

- 24

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al.
W ithou t thi s li m it ation to the reservation-of -rig hts clause , the district court w ould
have correctly const rued the in t e n t o f the partie s, as w e have previously held tha t the
inclusion of a stan dard reservation of rig hts provisi on “estab lishes tha t the re w as no inten t
f or ben ef its to v est.” Int’ l Union, UAW v. BVR Liqu idatin g, Inc. , 190 F.3d 768 , 773 (6th Cir.
199 9). T he plain language of this reservation-of -rig hts clause , howev er, limits its ability to
term inate coverage by subje cting such an altera tion to the provisi ons of the CBA and casts
dou bt on the district court’s conclu sion. T he CBA state s tha t “[d]u rin g t h e term of this Agreem ent , the Com pan y shall have the rig ht to am end in any w ay, the Plan s ref eren ced
in this Sche dule C, except tha t no such am end me nt shall dim inish the rig hts prescribed in
the Plan s as am end ed by this Agreem ent

. . . .” Jt. Ex. 4 at 121

. It is beyond question tha t
term inatin g a ll b ene f it s w ould f all w ithin the proh ibition of dim inishing the rig hts provided
f or in the SPDs. By caref ully om itting this language, the district court draws atte ntion to its significan ce a nd, the ref ore, the m agnitud e o f its error.

Unde r esta blished int e n t -t o -vest principles, the language of the CBA and the
relevant provi s io ns of the SPDs v este d life time retiree hea lth ben ef its. T here f ore, it is

unn ecessa ry to consid er any add itiona l extri nsic evidence; altho ugh “such evidence, had

w e consid ered it, w eighs hea v ily in the f avor of the plaint if f s and indicat es the def end ant s’
inten tion to provide life time retiree hea lt h c a re ben ef its.” Cole , 549 F.3d at 107 5. Moreover, it is imp ortan t to not e tha t beca use v esting occurs at the time of retirem ent , this

ana ly sis conce rns only th o s e w ho retired during the life of the CBA. W ood , 607 F.3d at

- 25

-No. 1 0-13 70

Schreib er, e t al. v. Ph ilips Display Compone nts Co m pan y, et al. 433 –34

. Af

ter this time , the def end ant s w ould not be bou nd by the provisi ons of the CBA
to t he extent t hat tho se p rov isions h ad not vested with respe ct to certa in ind iv idua ls.

V. CONCLUSION

For the state d reaso ns, I w ould rev erse the district court on the claims of brea ch of
t h e c o llectiv e bargaining agreem ent f or tho se hou rly em ployees w ho retired prior to the expiration of

the collective bargaining agreem ent

. I the ref ore respectf ully dissent in part.

- 26

-