- 19 -
pension benefit-–including the living pension feature-–was
“promised, anticipated and accrued.” Id. at 1466. It explained:
Congress determined “that despite the enormous
growth in * * * [pension] plans many employees with
long years of employment are losing anticipated
retirement benefits owing to the lack of vesting
provisions in such plans.” 29 U.S.C. � 1001(a). The
Supreme Court has held, “Congress through ERISA wanted
to ensure that ‘if a worker has been promised a defined
pension benefit upon retirement – and if he has
fulfilled whatever conditions are required to obtain a
vested benefit – * * * he actually receives it.’”
[Citations omitted.] Thus, the material available for
interpreting ERISA’s definition of “accrual” always
refers to the terms of the pension plan itself. It is
those terms that raise the anticipa[tion of] of
retirement benefits that Congress sought to protect and
the “promised * * * defined pension benefit” that the
Supreme Court has sought to protect. [Id. at
1465-1466.]
The courts in Hickey and Shaw ruled that the COLA adjustment
and the living pension feature, respectively, formed part of the
participants’ accrued benefit and could not be eliminated. In so
holding, both courts reasoned that the benefit supplement
involved had been promised to and relied on by affected employees
while they were employed. Respondent points out, however, that
neither court made a distinction between those retirees who had
left employment before the retirement benefit was adopted and
those who retired after the COLA was adopted. (In Hickey, the
COLA was adopted in 1973, and terminated in 1987. In Shaw, no
mention is made of when the “living pension” provision was
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011