the Courts view the summary plan description (SPD) as part of the plan, and in many cases give it weight over the Plan if there is an ambiguity between the Plan and the SPD. . (see my post “health benefits sellout” 6/21/00 for SPD clarification).
Jack, what did the attorneys retained by the SPD Committee actually say about “ambiguity”? Didn’t they find that ONLY IF the underlying negotiated agreement was ambiguous within itself, that other outside materials such as spd’s could then be considered to make a determination as to the meaning of the agreement?
But our agreement isn’t ambiguous at all. The Plan has a section called “Term of Agreement and Termination of the Plan,” and it runs concurrently with the Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerks’ Agreement. There’s nothing in it that provides any benefits after the term of the contract runs out, except to use up any remaining funds if there is no renewal of the Plan. When that money runs out, the game is up, until another agreement is reached. We did that once already in ’71. That’s what would happen again under the same circumstances. Right?
Which among the cases you have cited contains a situation involving a welfare plan such as the ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan which has clear termination provisions and eligibility language? If the plans in the other court cases are not like ours, then the discussion is going to be about apples and oranges. In other words, beside the point.
Now here you have the culmination of a three and one-half year campaign over this SPD issue at the Portland Caucus ending in a note of irony, Jack. You entitled your post, Vote for Miniace. Well, you did write,“a vote for McWilliams is a vote for Miniace.” I sense in that comment a lack of enthusiasm for his opponent, Spinosa. I’m wondering what’s up with that. I also noticed there wasn’t any endorsement for McEllrath and Ortiz. As I recall there was this promise to reinstate the SPD language during the last election. I don’t see much happening after all of this noise and fury.
Brian Nelson, Local 34
