Opinion ID: 723158
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Issuance of Injunction

Text: 6 We review the grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. Moltan Co. v. Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 55 F.3d 1171, 1175 (6th Cir.1995). In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, a district court must consider: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits of the action; (2) any irreparable injury to the plaintiff in the absence of an injunction; (3) whether the grant of an injunction would serve the public interest; and (4) the possibility that an injunction would substantially harm third parties. Id. Defendant contends that the district court erred in evaluating the first and second elements.
7 Applying the principles set forth in International Union v. Yard-Man, 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1007 (1984), the district court determined that the Insurance Agreement was ambiguous. After considering extrinsic evidence, the lower court found that the UAW and defendant had intended plaintiffs to receive a vested right to health insurance benefits. 8 It is clear that Yard-Man governs cases of this nature. Golden v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 73 F.3d 648, 656 (6th Cir.1996), petition for cert. filed, 64 U.S.L.W. 3727 (U.S. Apr. 17, 1996) (No. 95-1674). Yard-Man holds that health insurance benefits can survive the termination of a collective bargaining agreement depending on the intent of the parties. Yard-Man, 716 F.2d at 1479. To determine intent, courts apply the basic rules of contract construction. Id. at 1479-80. Courts may also rely on what has been termed the Yard-Man inference. The court stated: 9 it is unlikely that [life and health insurance] benefits, which are typically understood as a form of delayed compensation or reward for past services, would be left to the contingencies of future negotiations. The employees are presumably aware that the union owes no obligation to bargain for continued benefits for retirees.... Further, retiree benefits are in a sense status benefits which, as such, carry with them an inference that they continue so long as the prerequisite status is maintained. 10 Id. at 1482 (citations omitted). 11 Standing alone, the Yard-Man inference is insufficient to create a right to interminable benefits. Id. We emphasize that the Yard-Man inference does not shift the burden of proof onto the employer nor does it require anti-vesting language. Golden, 73 F.3d at 656. Rather, it is simply a tool to be used in determining the intent of the parties. Id. 12 After review of the relevant documents and the extrinsic evidence produced thus far, we hold that plaintiffs will likely succeed on the merits. We emphasize, however, that our opinion is specifically limited to the context of a preliminary injunction.
13 The district court determined that plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm as a result of the increased insurance costs and the consequent risk of having to forgo medical treatment. A finding of irreparable injury is reviewable only for clear error. International Resources, Inc. v. New York Life Ins. Co., 950 F.2d 294, 302 (6th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 973 (1992). 14 Other courts have found that retired union workers are particularly sensitive to even small increases in the cost of insurance coverage. Golden, 73 F.3d at 657; United Steelworkers of Am. v. Textron, Inc., 836 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir.1987). Plaintiffs have introduced several affidavits detailing the hardship that they would suffer if the court failed to grant an injunction. In light of these affidavits, and given the unique position of retirees, we reject defendant's contention that there is no irreparable injury.