Court Opinion

ID: 9605860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:42:47.968834+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:30.702063
License: Public Domain

FORT, J.,
concurring in part, dissenting in part.
The opinion of the court concludes that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding and conclusion of the trial court respecting the obligation of the companies to pay pensions to non-union employes. This conclusion is based in major part on the failure of any non-union employe to testify that he knew of a company plan to pay pensions and relied on it. While I agree such testimony would have aided their claim, it seems to me the trial court’s finding is supported not only by the testimony set forth in n 12, but also by the further fact that every non-union employe who reached retirement age while still an employe was awarded a pension by the board of directors, if he otherwise met the length of service standards. I think it was a reasonable inference for the trial court to conclude both that the non-union employes were fully aware of every such action by the board of directors, and that in continuing their employment, they came to rely upon that long-continued practice well before the termination of the franchise. This uniform practice had continued for 22 years. This seems to me to be particularly true where the union employes, as the majority points out, were throughout the period working under a contract which provided for the payment by the companies of pensions to those of its members who qualified thereunder.
*431Accordingly, I conclude that in the pension case, the decree of the trial court should he affirmed as to both the union and the non-union employes. In all other respects, I concur in the opinion of the court.