would be left to contingencies of future negotiations.” Retiree benefits are benefits. “the “status” They carry the inference that they are to last as long as the prerequisite status—retirement—i.e., for life. Retiree healthcare benefits are not by nature. as part of the “interminable” “Rather, context from which the collective bargaining agreement arose, the nature of such benefits simply provides another inference of intent.” This alone is insufficient to prove “inference” interminable benefits, but this factor buttresses the already sufficient evidence of “contextual such intent in the language” of the CBA. The 30-Year War Over Yard-Man Employers have fierce battles seeking to overturn or, at least, to shrink it Yard-Man to a size where, to borrow from Grover Norquist, they drown it in the bathtub.” For 30 “can years, however, the Sixth Circuit has held the line. And, rightly so, by applying traditional “the rules for contractual interpretation.” Employers complain that improperly creates a of vesting. The Yard-Man presumption Sixth Circuit has repeatedly instructed that this is not so, emphasizing that merely Yard-Man supports, in some circumstances, an helping to resolve ambiguities or confirm intent, inference, entirely consistent with traditional contract interpretation rules. The Sixth Circuit has characterized the inference as a in favor of vesting in close cases.” Yard-Man “nudge Employers point to other Circuits that reject any contextual inference favoring vesting, and ask the Sixth Circuit to reverse The Sixth Circuit has declined the invitation. Yard-Man. Especially since a 1998 salaried retiree healthcare case, Sprague v. General Motors Corp., employers argue that healthcare can vest only when there is and express” language “clear indicating lifetime intent. The Sixth Circuit has rejected this argument and differentiates between bargained promises and unilateral commitments. CBA promises of vested retirement
would be left to “the contingencies of future negotiations.” Retiree benefits are “status” benefits. They carry the inference that they are to last as long as the prerequisite status—retirement—i.e., for life. Retiree healthcare benefits are not “interminable” by nature. “Rather, as part of the context from which the collective bargaining agreement arose, the nature of such benefits simply provides another inference of intent.” This “inference” alone is insufficient to prove interminable benefits, but this “contextual factor buttresses the already sufficient evidence of such intent in the language” of the CBA. The 30-Year War Over Yard-Man Employers have fierce battles seeking to overturn Yard-Man or, at least, to shrink it to a size where, to borrow from Grover Norquist, they “can drown it in the bathtub.” For 30 years, however, the Sixth Circuit has held the line. And, rightly so, by applying “the traditional rules for contractual interpretation.” Employers complain that Yard-Man improperly creates a presumption of vesting. The Sixth Circuit has repeatedly instructed that this is not so, emphasizing that Yard-Man merely supports, in some circumstances, an inference, helping to resolve ambiguities or confirm intent, entirely consistent with traditional contract interpretation rules. The Sixth Circuit has characterized the Yard-Man inference as a “nudge in favor of vesting in close cases.” Employers point to other Circuits that reject any contextual inference favoring vesting, and ask the Sixth Circuit to reverse Yard-Man. The Sixth Circuit has declined the invitation. Especially since Sprague v. General Motors Corp., a 1998 salaried retiree healthcare case, employers argue that healthcare can vest only when there is “clear and express” language indicating lifetime intent. The Sixth Circuit has rejected this argument and differentiates between bargained promises and unilateral commitments. CBA promises of vested retirement
ISRAEL.docx