See text above, typescript at 141. Judge Holtzoff, writing in 1960 in Kennet v. United Mineworkers of America, 183 F. Supp. 315 (D.D.C. 1960) still found the question vexing. He began his answer by noting that the LMRA "authorized the establishment of welfare funds by employers for the sole and exclusive benefit of the employees of the employer and their families and dependents," and that "[t]he statute further provided . . . that the employees and employers were to be equally represented in the administration of th[e] fund."
Barlow v. Roche (Lewis), supra, and 2 Scott, Trusts, §§ 198, 198.1 (1956). There is also a diversity of opinion among the courts as to the amount of judicial review available in cases similar to this one. Certainly, the furtherest the courts have gone in establishing the extent of judicial review is that expressed by the court in Kennet v. United Mineworkers, etc., 1960, 183 F. Supp. 315, 318: Compare Hobbs v. Lewis, supra, and Kennet v. United Mineworkers of America, D.C.D.C. 1960, 183 F. Supp. 315 with Ruth v. Lewis, supra.
Stated another way, our interest here is directed to the reasonableness of the opportunity afforded to mature pension eligibility under current standards where all that is lacking is the actual termination of employment, rather than in debating whether such eligibility should be regarded in substance as already having been matured. Danti v. Lewis, supra; compare Ruth v. Lewis, 166 F. Supp. 346 (D.D.C. 1958), with Hobbs v. Lewis, 159 F. Supp. 282 (D.D.C. 1958); cf. Kennet v. United Mine Workers of America, 183 F. Supp. 315, 317-318 (D.D.C. 1960). This brings us to appellant's second major contention, which is that the Trustees acted arbitrarily in altering the eligibility requirement in respect of years of service without prior notice of any kind or the provision of an opportunity rationally calculated to give appellant an opportunity to elect between taking his pension or continuing in employment subject to the new requirement.
The scope of judicial review of the Trustees' decision that an applicant is not a beneficiary of the Fund has been discussed in several decisions of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as in decisions of courts in other jurisdictions. See Hobbs v. Lewis, 159 F. Supp. 282 (D.D.C. 1958); Kennet v. United Mineworkers of America, 183 F. Supp. 315 (D.D.C. 1960). Compare Ruth v. Lewis, 166 F. Supp. 346 (D.D.C. 1958); Barlow v. Roche, 161 A.2d 58 (D.C.Mun.App. 1960).