Pension Plan Properly Construed Plan Language In Denying Benefits
PERRY v. SHEET METAL WORKERS' LOCAL NO. 73 PENSION FUND (October 27, 2009)
Donald Perry and William Wilk both participated in their union's Pension Fund. Neither was awarded pension credit for the eight years they each worked in a training program at Washburne Trade School (now demolished). When they sought an adjustment, the Pension Fund explained that the school had been their actual employer during the period in question and was not a "contributing employer" under the terms of the Plan. The Fund further explained that the reason another union member who taught at the school at the same time did receive credit was because he was an employee of a "contributing employer" that made contributions in his name. Perry and Wilk filed suit under ERISA, alleging a denial of benefits. The district court granted summary judgment to the Pension Fund in a memorandum opinion dated March 24, 2008. Perry and Wilk appeal (on April 24).
In their opinion, Chief Judge Easterbrook and Judges Williams and Sykes affirmed. The Court first addressed the timeliness of the appeal, given that more than 30 days had passed between the time of the memorandum opinion and the notice of appeal. An appeal must be filed, however, within 30 days after the judgment is entered. Rule 58(a) requires a separate document for the entry of the judgment upon the granting of a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Appellate Rule 4, judgment is thus entered upon the earlier of the date on which the separate document is issued or 150 days have run from the entry of the order. Here, there was no separate order. The judgment is therefore not considered entered until 150 days have run. The appeal is timely, since an appeal filed after a decision but before the entry of a judgment is considered to be filed on the date of the entry of the judgment. On the merits, the Court's inquiry was limited to whether the Fund complied with the Plan's provisions in determining the members' pension credits. The Plan specifically provides that members receive pension credits for hours of work for which contributions are required to be paid by an employer. Since it is undisputed that no employer made or was required to make such contributions on behalf of Perry or Wilk, the Court concluded that the Fund acted in accordance with the Plan.
