- 17 -
current trustees could have mitigated plan losses by eliminating
the automatic COLA for participants who retired before its
effective date in 1991.
In its opinion, the District Court explained the purpose of
section 411(d)(6) by observing that “if an employee works with
the expectation that she is earning, and will receive, a pension
benefit, an employer may not later decide not to give her the
benefit that it has promised and she has earned.” Id. Citing
Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U.S. 504, 511 (1981),
the District Court noted that “The purpose of the requirement [in
section 411(d)(6)] is to protect that which an employee has been
promised and has earned over time.” Scardelletti v. Bobo, supra.
The court explained that “The question in our case is purely
whether a later-added benefit may be considered an accrued
benefit.” Id. at n.7. The court concluded that the COLA “was
not an accrued benefit” as to participants who retired before the
COLA was adopted in 1991, because those participants “did not
work with the expectation that they would receive a COLA.” Id.
Other courts have stressed the principle that an accrued
benefit is one that is promised to the employee, accrued by the
employee during his or her tenure as an employee, and expected by
the employee to be available upon retirement. In Hickey v.
Chicago Truck Drivers Union, 980 F.2d 465 (7th Cir. 1992), for
example, a union’s defined benefit pension plan was amended to
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011