- 20 -
adopted, although it was eliminated in 1976.6) Respondent
submits that this Court should adopt the rationale of Hickey v.
Chicago Truck Drivers Union, supra, and decline to distinguish
between the case of participants who retire before a COLA is
adopted and those who retire afterwards. Respondent cites
language in Hickey to the effect that--
viewing the Plan as a whole, the COLA is an essential
element of the normal retirement benefit. The COLA
ensures that the retirement benefits will not diminish
in real value over time. It provides the additional
retirement income each month that is necessary to
maintain the value of the retirement benefits. [Id. at
468.]
Respondent’s argument would have some force if the opinion
in Hickey had made an affirmative holding that the COLA was an
accrued benefit for pre-1974 retirees. It did not. We instead
accept the conclusion of the court in Scardelletti v. Bobo,
supra, which found Hickey to be distinguishable. In the case
before it, the court in Scardelletti observed that “Here,
beneficiaries who retired before 1991 did not accrue any COLA
benefit.” Id. The court stated:
Although * * * the Hickey court did not
distinguish between pre-1973 and post-1973 retirees, it
does not necessarily follow that that distinction is
irrelevant for determining whether the benefits were
6 In Shaw v. Intl. Association of Machinists & Aerospace
Workers Pension Plan, 563 F. Supp. 653, 655 (C.D. Cal. 1983),
the District Court’s opinion is silent on this fact as well,
although it does quote from a description of the “living trust”
dated 1969, some 6 years before the plaintiff retired and some 7
years before the “living pension” was terminated.
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