In reply, Hussmann argues that when a plan is amended and restated, all provisions not included in the restatement are no longer in effect. (Doc. No. 22 at 2) (citing Hauck v. Eschbacher, 665 F.2d 843, 845 (8th Cir. 1981)). Hussmann also contends it had no duty to negotiate the removal of the arbitration provision; its duty to continue the Plan without change was, per the terms of the 1980 amendment, limited to the "tenure of the Bargaining Agreement," (see supra, n. 1), which has been repeatedly renegotiated.
There is no indication that Park-Ohio will not follow this Court's orders and provide the benefits to which plaintiffs are entitled. See Hauck v. Eschbacher, 665 F.2d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 1981). Because the Court does not believe Park-Ohio's actions to be so egregious or such a breach of fiduciary duty as to warrant replacing it as trustee, the Court holds that under ERISA plaintiffs may not receive as damages a trust fund in the amount necessary to fund health insurance benefits, and instead should simply be reinstated to Park-Ohio's existing ERISA plan.
To hold otherwise would read out of the Plan discretionary powers expressly granted to the Trustees and would impair the flexibility necessary for proper management of pension plans.See 29 U.S.C. ยง 1096; Hauck v. Eschbacher, 665 F.2d 843, 848 n. 9 (8th Cir. 1981); Tanuggi v. Grolier, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 1209, 1216-17 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); Riley v. MEBA Pension Trust, 452 F. Supp. 117, 120-21 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 586 F.2d 968, 972 (2d Cir. 1978).Riley v. MEBA Pension Trust, 452 F. Supp. 117, 120 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 586 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1978)
As the Court of the Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has concluded, although facing a somewhat different question, "[a] terminated participant may not compel payment of his benefits prior to the latest date set forth in the statute unless the terms of the plan mandate earlier distribution." Hauck v. Eschbacher, 665 F.2d 843, 849 n. 9 (8th Cir. 1981). A pension plan is obviously designed to secure an employee's retirement years usually following what the employer hopes will have been productive years of service with it.
To support their contention that the rate of accrual of annual leave is an "accrued benefit," the JPOs cite several public and private pension cases from other jurisdictions which state that pension plan interest rates or other terms are "accrued benefits" under various statutes, regulations, and pension agreements. See, e.g., Hauck v. Eschbacher, 665 F.2d 843 (8th Cir. 1981); Shaw v. International Ass'n of Machinists Aerospace Workers Pension Plan, 563 F. Supp. 653 (D.C.Cal. 1983), aff'd, 750 F.2d 1458 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1137, 105 S.Ct. 2678, 86 L.Ed.2d 696 (1985); Flisock v. State, Div. of Retirement and Benefits, 818 P.2d 640 (Alaska 1991). While these pension cases might establish that sometimes a rate or formula may be considered "accrued," they do not convince us that our legislature meant "accrued benefits" to encompass the rate of accrual of annual leave in Section 47(C).