Opinion ID: 406244
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the corporation's sub plans

Text: 5 Since prior to 1975, the appellant UAW and the appellee Corporation have negotiated as part of the parties' collective bargaining agreement a Supplemental Unemployment Benefits (SUB) Plan. The terms of the plan have remained the same for all relevant purposes since 1965 (Deposition of Irvin Richards, at 25-27, A 192-194). 6 The SUB Plan provides in pertinent part (Plan-Article I, § 1, Eligibility for Benefits): 7 An employee shall be eligible for a Regular Benefit for any week beginning on or about December 1, 1976, if with respect to such week he: 8 (a) was on a qualifying layoff, as discussed in Section (3) of this Article, for all or part of the week; 9 (b) received a State System Benefit not currently under protest by The Corporation or was ineligible for a State System Benefit only for one or more of the following reasons; 10 (i) he did not have prior to layoff a sufficient period of employment or earnings covered by The State System; 11 (ii) exhaustion of his State System benefit rights. (Emphasis added) 12 Procedurally, the Plan operates as follows. The Corporation initially determines the eligibility of the SUB applicant (Plan Art. V. § 2(a)). If the Corporation determines that the employee is eligible, it orders the trustee to make payment (Plan Art. V. § 2(b)). If the Corporation determines that the employee is ineligible for SUB, the aggrieved employee may appeal the decision to the local committee at his/her plant, if one exists (Plan Art. V. § 3(b)). From there (or if there is no local plant committee after the initial denial, from that decision), the employee may appeal to the Board of Administration (Plan Art. V. § 3(2)) which is composed of six (6) members, three selected by the Union and three by the Corporation (Plan Art. V. § 2(a)). If on appeal the Board of Administration rules that the employee is eligible, the Corporation then orders the Plan Trustee to pay the benefits. The Board of Administration does not have the authority to direct the trustee to pay. 13
14 Since 1965, there has also been in existence a SUB Plan for non-union Corporation employees (A. 189-191). The substantive terms of that plan have been identical to the Chrysler-UAW Plan (A. 189-190, 194-195). However, the procedure differs insofar as the Corporation makes the sole determination of eligibility; there is no appeal procedure to a Board of Administration or otherwise (A. 189-190, 194-195, S.A. 3, 4).