Opinion ID: 6496026
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Union's Grievances

Text: On January 3, 2020, the Union filed grievances under the CBA on behalf of Barnard and Colleran. The Union asserted that Barnard and Colleran, who applied for pension benefits upon 2 Article 12 further includes the following relevant provisions: 12.026. No Power to Modify. The Joint Pension Committees shall have no power to add to or subtract from or modify any of the terms of the Plan nor to change or add to any benefit provided by the Plan, nor to waive or fail to apply any provision of the Plan. . . . 12.029. No Appeal After Review of Claim. Subject to the provisions of Section 503 of ERISA and to the Rules and Regulations for Administration and Enforcement issued by the Department of Labor under Title 29, Part 2560 of the United States Code, which requires that every pension plan shall provide both a procedure for presenting claims and a procedure for a fair review of claims which shall comply with the regulations of the Department of Labor, there shall be no appeal from any ruling by a Joint Pension Committee which is within its authority; and each such ruling shall be final and binding on the Union and its members, the Employee or Employees involved, and on the Plan Administrator. - 9 - retirement, did not receive the proper pension payments required under the CBA. On February 4, 2020, after failing to resolve the grievances, the Union sought arbitration under the CBA. On February 10, the Company rejected the Union's request to arbitrate the grievances, stating that [p]ursuant to the terms of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, the grievance is not arbitrable. Instead, the Company wrote that [t]he Claims Review Procedure is the exclusive means by which a Participant must make a claim for benefits under the Pension Plan, subject to his right to bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA. The Union then submitted Barnard's and Colleran's grievances to the JPC for a determination of their rights under the BGC Pension Plan. On June 9, 2020, the JPC met to consider Barnard's and Colleran's claims that they were eligible for further benefits but deadlocked in a tie. The JPC then notified the parties that it was unable to resolve the dispute. The JPC did not explicitly state whether it was referring the matter back to the parties under Section 12.027 of the BGC Pension Plan, which provides: Any case referred to a Joint Pension Committee on which it has no power to rule shall be referred back to the parties without ruling. The JPC's vote on the grievance ended in a tie. The record is not clear about the basis for that tie. - 10 - On June 15, the Union contacted the Company to propose potential arbitrators to arbitrate the disputes under Section 12.025 of the BGC Pension Plan. On July 14, the Company again refused arbitration and stated that the disputes were not arbitrable under the BGC Pension Plan. In the letter (July 14 letter), the Company stated: [Barnard's and Colleran's] disputes concern a rule established by the Plan Administrator that an individual must contact the Pension Connect Center at least 45 days in advance of his planned retirement date. Such disputes, however, are not arbitrable. . . . The JPC is formed under Section 12.02 of the Pension Plan, in addition to the Plan Administrator, to determine questions of eligibility under the Plan. There is no question of eligibility concerning Mr. Colleran or Mr. Barnard. Each has been determined eligible for and is receiving benefits under the Pension Plan. Because there is no question of eligibility, there is [no] dispute that would be arbitrable under section 12.025. The letter also restated the Company's position that [t]he Claims Review Procedure is the exclusive means by which a Participant must make a claim for benefits under the Pension Plan, subject to his right to bring a civil action under Section 502(a) of ERISA.