Opinion ID: 202612
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Relationship of the Plan Documents to the S-6 and S-7 CBAs

Text: 52 In response to the General Counsel's unfair labor practice charges, the Company stated that in merging the Plan into the General Dynamics pension plan it acted pursuant to authority granted it in the Plan documents, which it said were incorporated into the three Unions' CBAs. The Board, in applying the sound arguable basis test, did not hold that the Plan documents were incorporated into the CBAs. It merely held that the Plan documents are arguably a part of the CBAs, and that they arguably give the [Company] the authority to effect the merger. Bath Iron Works Corp., 345 N.L.R.B. No. 33, at 5. 53 The determination of an unfair labor practice charge may become more difficult when certain terms and conditions of employment, such as the specific terms of the Plan, are described in documents other than the CBA itself. Of course, if the CBA expressly states that those other documents are incorporated in the agreement, that suffices to include those documents in the analysis. Mary Thompson Hosp., 296 N.L.R.B. 1245, 1246-47 (1989), enforced, 943 F.2d 741 (7th Cir.1991). 54 We agree with the Board majority, however, that, at least under the sound arguable basis standard, the ALJ and the dissent from the Board's opinion were incorrect to insist on some particular incantation of words. 9 See Bath Iron Works Corp., 345 N.L.R.B. No. 33, at 5. The fact that none of the contracts here use the term incorporate does not mean the Plan documents are not sufficiently part of the contracts to be considered in the sound arguable basis analysis. To the extent the Board seems to have adopted a test that the agreements must simply refer[] in some way to the Plan documents, id. at 2, we disagree. Mere reference may well not be sufficient. 55 Here, we are persuaded that the Plan documents are sufficiently a part of the S-6 and S-7 CBAs, whether they are explicitly incorporated or not, to be considered in the sound arguable basis test. We examine de novo the terms of the particular agreements, since this is a matter of contract interpretation. See Litton, 501 U.S. at 202, 111 S.Ct. 2215. Neither the S-6 nor the S-7 CBA merely refers to the Plan documents. Rather than mere reference, the S-6 CBA specifies that employee pension plans are ERISA Plans and their terms and conditions are governed by Plan Documents. Similarly, the S-7 CBA states with respect to the Plan, among other benefits, that [a]ll of the terms and conditions in their entirety are governed by Plan documents. . . . This language demonstrates that the parties negotiated over and reached a bargain as to what documents governed the terms and conditions of the Plan, and those documents were specifically identified in each of the CBAs. The Company could thus arguably consider the Plan documents a part of the CBA and rely on the documents as a basis for authority to merge the Plan. 56