�鶹Ů��

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a chemical company may be able to cut the health benefits of its retired workers, unanimously reversing an appeals court ruling that said the benefits had vested for life. “Courts should not construe ambiguous writings to create lifetime promises,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court, adding that “retiree health care benefits are not a form of deferred compensation.” (Liptak, 1/26)

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled ambiguous provisions in union contracts shouldn’t automatically be interpreted in favor of workers, giving a chemical manufacturer another chance to terminate lifetime health-care benefits for retirees. ... The retirees and their dependents filed suit, and the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati found the company had reneged on the contract, saying it was “unlikely that [the union] would agree” to such a deal “if the company could unilaterally change the level of contribution.” (Bravin, 1/26)

The Supreme Court cast doubt Monday on the future of old union contracts that had promised lifetime health benefits for retired workers and their families. In a case seen as a victory for corporate America, the justices ruled these promises should not be treated as “vested rights” unless they are spelled out in the contract. (Savage, 1/26)

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that companies can terminate retiree health benefits when labor agreements are renewed if the original contract language was ambiguous. (Wolf, 1/26)