____________________________________________________________________________
OPINION OF TRUSTEES
____________________________________________________________________________
In Re
Complainant: Pensioner
Respondent: Employer
ROD Case No: 16-0016 – July 15, 2024
Trustees: Micheal W. Buckner, Michael O. McKown, Paul B. Piccolini
The Trustees have reviewed the facts and circumstances of this dispute concerning the provision of benefits under the terms of the Employer Benefit Plan.
Background Facts
The Complainant began working as a classified employee in the Coal Industry in June 1976 for a signatory employer. In June 2023, Complainant was awarded a deferred vested pension based on 20 years or more of credited service under the UMWA 1974 Pension Plan, with an effective of May 1, 2023. This pension award was based on the Complainant’s 23.25 years of service. He was last employed in a classified position by the Respondent from December 1, 2001, through February 28, 2002. As such, Respondent is Complainant’s last signatory employer. Since his pension award, Complainant has contacted the Respondent numerous times for a health benefit application. In January 2024, the UMWA’s legal department sent a letter to the Respondent and requested that a health application be sent to the Complainant. To date, the Complainant has not received a health application from the Respondent.
The Respondent has been signatory to the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement (“NBCWA”) since 1974. It was last signatory to a modified 2016 NBCWA. The agreement had a modified effective date of January 1, 2017, and a standard termination date of December 31, 2021. The agreement did not modify the Respondent’s contribution obligations under Article XX, Health and Retirement Benefits. The agreement also did not modify health benefits coverage with respect to the Respondent’s current or future retirees.
The Respondent agrees that it employed the Complainant as a dozer operator (which is a classified position). However, the Respondent alleges that because the Complainant was working at a non-signatory mine location, the Respondent is not responsible for providing retiree health benefits to the Complainant.
Dispute
Is the Respondent required to provide retiree health benefit coverage for the Complainant under the Respondent’s Employer Benefit Plan?
Positions of the Parties
Position of the Complainant: The Respondent is required to provide retiree health benefit coverage for the Complainant as a Pensioner because the Respondent was the Complainant’s last signatory employer.
Position of the Respondent: The Respondent stated it was not responsible for the Complainant’s retiree health benefits because he was working at a non-signatory mine location when employed by the company. This position was conveyed in emails from the Respondent to UMWA Health & Retirement Funds staff prior to the formal filing of the ROD. As the Respondent did not respond formally after the ROD was filed, the position the Respondent stated in its email correspondence will be treated as the Respondent’s response.
Pertinent Provisions
2016 NBCWA
Article XX Section (c)(3)(i) of the 2016 NBCWA provides in pertinent part:
Each signatory Employer shall establish and maintain an Employee benefit plan to provide, implemented through an insurance carrier(s), health and other non-pension benefits for its Employees covered by this Agreement as well as pensioners under the 1974 Pension Plan and Trust whose last signatory classified employment was with such Employer and who are not eligible to receive benefits from a plan maintained pursuant to the Coal Act. . . .
2016 UMWA Employer Benefit Plan
Article I (5), defines who is and is not considered to be a pensioner and states in pertinent part:
(5) “Pensioner” shall mean a former Employee of the Employer who is receiving a pension from the UMWA 1974 Pension Plan, and whose last signatory employment was with the Employer. . . .
Article II B sets forth the eligibility requirements for Pensioners and states in pertinent part that:
Health benefits under Article III hereof shall be provided to Pensioners as follows:
- Any Pensioner who is not again employed in classified signatory employment subsequent to
- such Pensioner’s initial date of retirement under the 1974 Pension Plan, and
(b) the Effective Date, shall be eligible for coverage as a Pensioner under, and subject to all other provisions of this Plan. Notwithstanding (i) and (ii) of the definition of Pensioner in Article I (5) of this Plan, any such Pensioner who was eligible for benefits under the 1974 Benefit Plan as a Pensioner on December 5, 1977, shall be eligible for such benefits, subject to all other provisions of this Plan.
Discussion
Article XX(c)(3)(i) of the 2016 Wage Agreement requires a signatory Employer to establish and maintain an Employer Benefit Plan to provide health and other non-pension benefits for its Pensioners whose last signatory classified employment was with such Employer. Article II.B(1) of the Employer Benefit Plan establishes that an individual who is receiving a pension under the 1974 Pension Plan (with certain exceptions not relevant here) is eligible for health benefits coverage under the Employer Benefit Plan. In June 2023, the Complainant was awarded a deferred vested pension based on 20 years or more of credited service under the UMWA 1974 Pension Plan, effective May 1, 2023. Receipt of this pension type entitles the Complainant to receive health benefits from his last signatory employer. By signing the 2016 Wage Agreement, Respondent agreed to be bound by the provisions of Article XX as it pertains to retiree pension and health benefits. Therefore, because Respondent is Complainant’s last signatory employer under the 2016 Wage Agreement, and Complainant is a Pensioner entitled to health benefits coverage, Respondent is required to provide Complainant with such coverage.
The Respondent did not respond formally to this ROD. However, in a series of emails from the Respondent prior to the formal filing of this ROD, it asserted that it is not responsible for Complainant’s retiree health benefits because the Complainant was working at a non-signatory mine location. It provided documentation relating to the Complainant’s employment, including the Complainant’s New Hire Reporting Form, application for employment, Form I-9, Form W-4, Certificate of Training documents, as well as an unemployment form. These documents all confirmed the location at which the Complainant was working, but they are silent as to whether the location was a signatory or non-signatory mine site.
The Funds’ records indicate that the Respondent reported credit hours to the Funds for the Complainant’s classified hours worked during the months of December 2001, January 2002 and February 2002.[1] There were 26 other mine workers who had credit hours reported by the Respondent at the same mine location. There is also at least one other mine worker who last worked for the Respondent at the same location who is receiving retiree health benefits from the Respondent. This evidence is sufficient to substantiate that the Complainant was working at a signatory mine site.
Based on a review of the Funds’ records, the Trustees conclude that the Respondent was the Complainant’s last signatory Employer. As such, the Respondent is required to provide health benefits coverage for the Complainant as a Pensioner pursuant to Article II.B(1) of the Employer Benefit Plan.
Opinion of the Trustees
The Respondent is required to provide coverage for the Complainant as a Pensioner effective May 1, 2023.
[1] The Funds’ records also show that the Respondent reported 20.0 hours of vacation/holiday time for the Complainant in June 2002.