Opinion ID: 169422
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Woods Cross Plaintiffs

Text: 32 Believing they were entitled to WFSP benefits, the Woods Cross plaintiffs formally applied for benefits on June 5, 2003. On September 24, 2003, the Plan Administrator denied the benefits, giving the following rationale: 33 This list of benefits and policies that are applicable to the employees covered by the [Woods Cross CBA] is quite detailed and although reference is made to the Layoff Plan, another severance benefit plan of Phillips Petroleum, there is no reference to, or inclusion of, the Work Force Stabilization Plan, as required by the WFSP definitions for employee and participant. Additionally, Section 2 of Article VII of the Bargaining Agreement further states: The conditions, rules, and regulations of such security plans and benefits as established by Phillips Petroleum Company shall determine all questions arising there under.[] Thus, it is my determination that the WFSP is not included under the Bargaining Agreement as required by the terms of the WFSP and therefore, Claimants are not covered by the WFSP. 34 Id. at 969 (emphasis added). 35 The Woods Cross plaintiffs appealed the denial of their claims to the Plan Committee on October 29, 2003. The appeal letter responded to each point raised in the Plan Administrator's denial letter, including the apparent determinative rationale that although reference is made to the Layoff Plan, another severance benefit plan of Phillips Petroleum, there is no reference to, or inclusion of, the Work Force Stabilization Plan, in the Woods Cross CBA. The appeal letter stated: 36 Although, as [the Plan Administrator] pointed out in his letter, this list of plans and benefits [from the Woods Cross CBA] is quite detailed, it is not exhaustive. In fact, it is expressly stated that the list does not include every plan or benefit. The language of the collective bargaining agreement is that the Claimants are entitled to all benefits arranged by the Company for its employees generally, and that the benefits available include among others, those specifically itemized in the list. There is no dispute that benefits under this Plan have been available to all Phillips Petroleum Company employees generally, and the list, because it is preceded by the words among others, expressly includes other plans not specifically mentioned. Under the plain language of the collective bargaining agreement, the Claimants are therefore entitled to  all benefits arranged by the Company for its employees generally, which include benefits under the Plan.... 37 Furthermore, the Claimants have been allowed to participate in employee benefit plans that were not specifically listed in the collective bargaining agreement. Such plans include the Scholarship Plan, the Death Gratuity Plan, the Long-Term Care Plan, the Employee Assistance Plan, and, more recently, the Performance 66 Account, among others. 38 Id. at 165-66. 39 A packet of materials for advance review was prepared for the Plan Committee which included the appeal letter. The Overview section of the packet (which is more accurately described as a recommendation) stated that: There is no reference to, or inclusion of, the WFSP in the collective bargaining agreement. The Claimants are not eligible for the WFSP. Id. at 951. The packet contained no other response to the arguments asserted in the appeal letter. Id. at 177-229. To be sure, the packet outlined each of the Woods Cross plaintiffs' arguments but it did not provide a response to any of them, aside from the general statement in the Overview that the WFSP was not referenced or included in the CBA. In addition, the Plan's subsequent litigation position — that the WFSP is not a benefit that was arranged by the Company for its employees generally — is nowhere specifically articulated in the appeal packet. The only relevant reference to the Plan's availability is a statement in the Woods Cross plaintiffs' appeal letter which reads: There is no dispute that benefits under this Plan have been available to all ... employees generally.... Id. at 206. 40 The minutes of the Plan Committee meeting state the following, in pertinent part: 41 The third agenda item was the Scott Hagen [counsel for Employees] appeal on behalf of the members (Claimants) of PACE Local No. 8-578 to the Plan Administrator's denial of benefits under the Work Force Stabilization Plan (Plan). The Plan excludes members of a recognized or certified collective bargaining unit as being eligible for severance benefits unless the Plan is included under the collective bargaining agreement. There is no reference to, or inclusion of, the Work Force Stabilization Plan in the collective bargaining agreement. 42 Connie Brandon presented an overview of the key events of the appeal. The Committee reviewed and discussed Mr. Hagen's appeal, the relevant terms of the Plan and the relevant terms of the Agreement Between Phillips Petroleum Company and Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union and its Local No. 8-578. The Union had adopted the Phillips Layoff Plan in negotiations, but had not adopted the Plan. 43 After discussion, the Committee determined the Claimants were not eligible for severance benefits under the Work Force Stabilization Plan. John Carrig made the motion to deny the appeal, Rand Berney seconded the motion, and the Committee voted unanimously to deny the appeal for the Plan benefits. The Committee concurred with the Plan Administrator's decision. 44 Id. at 325-26 (emphasis added). These minutes make no specific reference to the Plan's litigation position that the WFSP is not a plan arranged by the Company for its employees generally. Apparently, the Plan Committee simply agreed with the proposition that the WFSP had not been adopted by the Union; i.e., that the WFSP was not included in the CBA. 45 The Plan Committee drafted a denial letter dated December 18, 2003. 3 In explaining its denial, the Plan Committee did not contest any of the factual assertions in the Woods Cross plaintiffs' appeal letter but instead stated: The Committee does not agree with your interpretation of the language contained in the collective bargaining agreement with respect to inclusion of the plan. Id. at 169. It then relied exclusively on the Plan Administrator's determination to deny the claims, stating that the Committee is in agreement with the reasons set forth in the determination of [the Plan Administrator's] letter of September 24, 2003. Id. at 170. The Woods Cross plaintiffs then filed suit on June 14, 2004, with Mr. Flinders and Mr. Brown serving as class representatives.