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

Heading: The Company's Interpretation of the S-6 and S-7 CBAs

Text: 57 We review de novo the question of whether the Company's interpretation of the three CBAs has a sound arguable basis. Litton, 501 U.S. at 202, 111 S.Ct. 2215. We conclude that the sound arguable basis test has been met. 58 To the extent the Unions argue 10 that the Plan documents cannot arguably be read in conjunction with the S-6 and S-7 CBAs to give the Company the authority to alter the Plan sponsor, the Unions still cannot prevail. 59 The argument that the S-6 and S-7 agreements must be read to fix the `terms and conditions' of the pension plan for the duration of the agreement[s], Bath Iron Works Corp., 345 N.L.R.B. No. 33, at 11 (Liebman, Member, dissenting), fails. To the contrary, section 12.1 of the Plan reserves to the Company the right to amend, modify, or suspend the Plan, subject to any limitations in the CBAs, of which there are none. The S-6 and S-7 CBAs otherwise explicitly do not exclude that power. It is a sound and arguable interpretation of those CBAs that the Company had the authority to unilaterally change the Plan sponsor, whether or not the argument is correct. The dissenting Board Member's point that such an interpretation would give the Unions less protection against unilateral changes than [they] would have enjoyed if the agreement[s] had never referred to the [P]lan, id. (emphasis omitted), is hardly dispositive. Parties routinely make concessions during bargaining. 60