2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 1 of 24 Pg ID 4466
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 2 of 24 Pg ID 4467
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 3 of 24 Pg ID 4468
INTERN. U., UNITED AUTO., AERO., ETC. v. YARD-MAN 1479 

Cite as 716 F.2d 1476 (1983) 

Yard-Man's appeal from the summary judgment, granting specific performance on 

both counts, and the UA W's cross-appeal 

from that portion of the District Court's 

judgment requiring repayment of the cash 

distribution made in lieu of supplemental 

pension annuities, as a condition of receiving such an annuity. 

Resolution of the UAW's claim of lifelong 

insurance benefits for retirees requires interpretation of key contractual language in 

the collective bargaining agreement. The 

Union's second claim, the undisputed failure 

by Yard-Man to purchase the annuities 

called for in the collective bargaining agreement, requires evaluation of Yard-Man's affirmative defense of substituted performance and the legitimacy of offering such 

performance directly to the retirees after 

suit had been filed and without notice to 

the union. 

I. The Parties Intended to Create Lifelong 

Vested Insurance Benefits for the YardMan Retirees 

[1-3] The District Court properly recognized that whether retiree insurance benefits continue beyond the expiration of the 

collective bargaining agreement depends 

upon the intent of the parties. Clearly the 

parties to a collective bargaining agreement 

may provide for rights which will survive 

termination of their collective bargaining relationship. John Wiley & Sons v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 555, 84 S.Ct. 909,917, 11 

L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). The parties may, for example, provide retiree insurance benefits 

which survive the expiration of the collective 

bargaining agreement. Upholsterer's International Union v. American Pad & Textile 

Co., 372 F.2d 427, 428 (6th Cir.1967); International Union, UA W, Local 784 v. Cadillac 

Malleable Iron Co., Inc., No. G82-75-CA1 

(W.D.Mich. April 20, 1982); American Standard, Inc., 57 Lab.Arb. (BNA) 698 (1971) 

(Warns, Arb.); Roxbury Carpet Co. and 

Textile Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 

73-2 Lab.Arb. Awards (CCH) ~ 8521 (1973) 

(Summers, Arb.). Any such surviving benefit must necessarily find its genesis in the 

collective bargaining agreement. See John 

Wiley & Sons, supra, 376 U.S. at 550, 555, 

84 S.Ct. at 914, 917; Allied Chemical & 

Alkali Workers v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass, 

404 U.S. 157, 181 n. 20, 92 S.Ct. 383, 398 n. 

20, 30 L.Ed.2d 341 (1971); Local 1251, International Union, UA W v. Robertshaw Controls Co., 405 F.2d 29, 33 (2d Cir.1968); 

American Pad, supra, 372 F.2d at 427-28. 

[4] The enforcement and interpretation 

of collective bargaining agreements under 

§ 301 is governed by substantive federal 

law. Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln 

Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 456, 77 S.Ct. 912, 917, 1 

L.Ed.2d 972 (1957). However, traditional 

rules for contractual interpretation are applied as long as their application is consistent with federal labor policies. Id. at 457, 

77 S.Ct. at 918. See John Wiley, supra, 376 

U.S. at 548, 84 S.Ct. at 913; TransportationCommunication Employees Union v. Union 

Pacific R.R., 385 U.S. 157, 160-61,87 S.Ct. 

369,371-72,17 L.Ed.2d 264 (1966); Kellogg 

Company v. NLRB, 457 F.2d 519, 524 (6th 

Cir.1972). 

[5-9] Many of the basic principles of 

contractual interpretation are fully appropriate for discerning the parties' intent in 

collective bargaining agreements. For example, the court should first look to the 

explicit language of the collective bargaining agreement for clear manifestations of 

intent. Kellogg Co., supra, 457 F.2d at 524. 

The intended meaning of even the most 

explicit language can, of course, only be 

understood in light of the context which 

gave rise to its inclusion. See Randall v. 

Lodge No. 1076, International Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-C/O, 

648 F.2d 462 (7th Cir.1981); Forrest Industries, Inc. v. Local Union No. 3-436, International Woodworkers of America, AFLC/O, 381 F.2d 144, 146 (9th Cir.1967)j United Steelworkers of America v. American 

Manufacturing Co., 363 U.S. 564, 570, 80 

S.Ct. 1343, 1364, 4 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1960) 

(Brennan, J., concurring). The court should 

also interpret each provision in question as 

part of the integrated whole. If possible, 

each provision should be construed consistently with the entire document and the 

relative positions and purposes of the par2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 4 of 24 Pg ID 4469
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 5 of 24 Pg ID 4470
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 6 of 24 Pg ID 4471
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 7 of 24 Pg ID 4472
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 8 of 24 Pg ID 4473
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 9 of 24 Pg ID 4474
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 10 of 24 Pg ID 4475
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 11 of 24 Pg ID 4476
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 12 of 24 Pg ID 4477
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 13 of 24 Pg ID 4478
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 14 of 24 Pg ID 4479
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 15 of 24 Pg ID 4480
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 16 of 24 Pg ID 4481
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 17 of 24 Pg ID 4482
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 18 of 24 Pg ID 4483
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 19 of 24 Pg ID 4484
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 20 of 24 Pg ID 4485
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 21 of 24 Pg ID 4486
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 22 of 24 Pg ID 4487
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 23 of 24 Pg ID 4488
2:09-cv-10918-PDB-MKM Doc # 101-10 Filed 05/14/12 Pg 24 of 24 Pg ID 4489