Opinion ID: 430565
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Management Representations

Text: 20 Certain statements made by management may have led employees to believe that they had contracted for a lifelong medical insurance plan. One employee has stated under oath that he was told that insurance benefits would continue for the rest of [his] life. The local union president was told that surviving spouses would receive insurance as long as they continued to pay their contributions to the plan. 21 Bunker Hill argues that these statements were never made and, if they were, they do not rise to the level of a material factual dispute. The first part of this argument does not help Bunker Hill's cause. The factual dispute over whether statements were actually made is precisely the sort of issue that is properly resolved by a jury. Thus, this dispute, if material, precludes summary judgment. 22 The second part of this argument, however, is more compelling. While representations to two of the 2400 workers employed by Bunker Hill may not constitute a material issue, when one of those two workers is the local union president, the representations become more troubling. An influential labor figure may bargain on behalf of others, or widely circulate misinformation. Under these circumstances, a more detailed inquiry into the effect of management representations is required. Although this issue may ultimately prove immaterial, the record is not yet sufficiently developed to make this determination. Thus, the district court must examine additional parol evidence to assess the materiality of management representations that insurance benefits were vested.