Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 557

524US2

Unit: $U94

[09-11-00 13:26:39] PAGES PGT: OPLG

512

EASTERN ENTERPRISES v. APFEL

Opinion of O(cid:146)Connor, J.

and guaranteed health care beneﬁts for life, but also because
coal miners in their labor contracts have traded lower pen-
sions over the years for better health care beneﬁts.” Coal
Comm’n Report, Executive Summary vii, App. (CA1) 1324.
The Commission agreed that “a statutory obligation to con-
tribute to the plans should be imposed on current and former
signatories to the [NBCWA],” but disagreed about “whether
the entire [coal] industry should contribute to the resolution
Id., at vii–viii, App.
of the problem of orphan retirees.”
(CA1) 1324–1325. Therefore, the Commission proposed two
alternative funding plans for Congress’ consideration.

First, the Commission recommended that Congress estab-
lish a fund ﬁnanced by an industrywide fee to provide health
care to orphan retirees at the level of beneﬁts they were
entitled to receive at that fund’s inception. To cover the
cost of medical beneﬁts for retirees from signatories to the
1978 or subsequent NBCWA’s who remained in the coal busi-
ness, the Commission proposed the creation of another fund
ﬁnanced by the retirees’ most recent employers.
Id., at 61,
App. (CA1) 1390. The Commission also recommended that
Congress codify the “evergreen” obligation of the 1978 and
subsequent NBCWA’s.

Id., at 63, App. (CA1) 1392.

As an alternative to imposing industrywide liability, the
Commission suggested that Congress spread the cost of re-
tirees’ health beneﬁts across “a broadened base of current
and past signatories to the contracts,” apparently referring
to the 1978 and subsequent NBCWA’s. See id., at 58, 65,
(CA1) 1387, 1394. Not all Commission members
App.
agreed, however, that it would be fair to assign such a bur-
den to signatories of the 1978 agreement. Four Commis-
sioners explained that “[i]ssues of elemental fairness are in-
volved” in imposing obligations on “respectable operators
who made decisions in the past to move to different locales,
invest in different technology, or pursue their business with
or without respect to union presence.”
Id., at 85, App.
(CA1) 1414 (statement of Commissioners Michael J. Mahoney,