Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 608

524US2

Unit: $U94

[09-11-00 13:26:40] PAGES PGT: OPLG

Cite as: 524 U. S. 498 (1998)

563

Breyer, J., dissenting

7–8, App. (CA1) 975–976; 1960 W&R Fund Annual Report 9,
App. (CA1) 1018; 1961 W&R Fund Annual Report 16–17,
App. (CA1) 1058–1059; 1962 W&R Fund Annual Report 15–
16, App. (CA1) 1090–1091; 1963 W&R Fund Annual Report
15–16, App. (CA1) 1123–1124; 1964 W&R Fund Annual Re-
port 22–23, App. (CA1) 1160–1161; 1965 W&R Fund Annual
Report 14, App. (CA1) 1187. See also Hearings on Health
Beneﬁts, at 36 (suggesting retirees eligible “ ‘from the incep-
tion of bargained beneﬁts’ ”).

The only signiﬁcant difference between the coverage pro-
vided before 1974 and after 1974 consists of greater gener-
osity after 1974 with respect to widows, for the earlier 12-
month limitation was repealed and health beneﬁts extended
to widows’ remarriage or death. See 1974 NBCWA 105,
App. (CA1) 758.

(4) In return for what the miners thought was an assur-
ance (though not a contractual obligation) from management
of continued pension and health care beneﬁts, the Union
agreed to accept mechanization of mining, a concession that
meant signiﬁcant layoffs and a smaller future work force.
Coal Comm’n Report 11–14, App. (CA1) 1342–1345 (75% de-
cline in employment from 1950 to 1969); Krajcinovic 4, 43–44;
Seltzer, supra, at 36; see also C. Perry, Collective Bargaining
and the Decline of the United Mine Workers 43 (1984) (detail-
ing beneﬁts of mechanization for coal operators). The presi-
dent of the Southern Coal Operators’ Association said in 1953
that the miners “have been promised and grown accustomed
to” health beneﬁts. App. (CA1) 2000. Those beneﬁts, the
management’s W&R Fund trustee said in 1951, covered
“mine worker[s], including pensioners, and dependents . . .
without limit as to duration.”
Id., at 1972. This Court, too,
has said that the UMWA “agreed not to oppose the rapid
mechanization of the mines” in exchange for “increased
wages” and “payments into the welfare fund.” Mine Work-
ers v. Pennington, 381 U. S. 657, 660 (1965); see also id., at
698 (Goldberg, J., concurring in judgment) (improved wages,