Opinion ID: 2976256
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Incorporation of the EBAs by the MOA

Text: As a threshold matter, it is necessary to determine if the MOA incorporates the health benefits provisions of the EBAs to Plaintiffs. In the absence of incorporation, Plaintiffs’ claim fails because the collective bargaining agreements negotiated between Plaintiffs and BFG are silent as to health benefits. The MOA states in pertinent part: The following Article is hereby included in the current Collective Bargaining Agreement: The Pension Plan, including the requirement for compulsory retirement at age seventy, the Hospitalization, Surgical and Medical Expense Insurance Program . . ., and the Prescription Drug Program presently in effect for the majority of The BFGoodrich Company’s production and maintenance employees shall be in effect for the life of this Agreement. JA at 646. According to the district court, while “the MOA is far from clear, the parties appear to have intended that this general reference incorporate the EBA health benefit provisions.” Noe v. PolyOne Corp., No. 3:06-CV-170H, 2006 WL 3759601, at  (W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2006). Disagreeing with the district court’s determination on this issue, PolyOne argues that Plaintiffs have failed to offer any evidence—aside from anecdotes and hearsay—showing that the MOA incorporated the EBAs to Plaintiffs. In response, Plaintiffs argue that the parties’ course of conduct No. 07-5068 Noe, et al. v. PolyOne Corp. Page 4 illustrates that they intended for the MOA to provide employees and retirees of BFG’s Louisville facility with the health benefits found in the EBAs. Based on our review of the MOA and the conduct of the parties, the district court correctly held that the MOA incorporated the EBAs to Plaintiffs. Because the MOA itself is unclear on this issue, the district court properly looked to extrinsic evidence and the course of performance between the parties in determining that the MOA incorporated the EBAs. As the district court recognized, the most telling of this extrinsic evidence is the fact that “[e]veryone agrees that [Plaintiffs] actually received the benefits described in the EBAs and continued to receive them after retirement.” Id. at . Although the terms of the MOA undoubtedly could have been more precise, the evidence establishes that it was intended by the parties to apply the EBAs to Plaintiffs. Therefore, we proceed to analyze the EBA provisions themselves to determine whether the district court properly found that Plaintiffs’ retiree health benefits have not vested.