This paper extends analysis of the intersection between economic and geographical restructuring, unions, and corporate pension liabilities. The focus here is on Gavalik v Continental Can Co., a suit brought in federal district court alleging that the company had violated Section 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by laying off workers and relocating work at the company's Pittsburgh plant. After considering the role of unions in the growth and expansion of private pensions in the United States, and the current case in the context of litigation over the power of Section 510, the legal arguments made by the plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts are examined. Emphasized are issues relating to the motivations of the corporation, as well as the courts' determination of what are legal and illegal actions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander v Gardner-Denver Co. (415 US 36 [1974])
2.
Amaro v Continental Can Co. (724 F.2d 747, 748 [1984])
3.
Amaro et al v Continental Can Co. (No.82–3984-LEW [1987])
4.
AndrewsE, 1985The Changing Profile of Pensions in AmericaEmployee Benefit Research Institute, Washington, DC)
5.
Barrowclough v Kidder, Peabody and Co. (752 F.2d 923 [3rd Cir. 1985])
6.
Baumol W, Panzor J, Willig R, and others, 1988Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure2nd edition (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York)
7.
Bureau of National Affairs (Ed.), 1974, “Highlights of the new pension reform law”Labor Relations Reporter87(1) Washington, DC
8.
ClarkG L, 1985Judges and the Cities: Interpreting Local AutonomyUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
9.
ClarkG L, 1989a, “Law and the interpretive turn in social science”Urban Geography10209–288
10.
ClarkG L, 1989b, “Dispute over the jurisdiction and relative autonomy of the National Labor Relations Board”Policy Studies Journal (forthcoming)
11.
ClarkG L, 1989cUnions and Communities Under Siege: American Communities and the Crisis of Organized LaborCambridge University Press, Cambridge)
12.
ClarkG L, 1990, “Location, management strategy and workers' pensions”Environment and Planning A2217–37
13.
CollingsworthT, 1988, “ERISA Section 510—a further limitation on arbitrary discharges”Industrial Relations Law Journal10319–349
14.
Cross v NLRB (HA F.2d 875 [1949])
15.
Daily Labor Report, 1989, 15 May (number 92) pp D-1–D-17
16.
Delgrasso et al v Spang and Company (769 F.2d 928 [3rd Cir. 1985])
17.
FriedC, 1981Contract as PromiseHarvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
18.
Gavalik v Continental Can Co. (Nos. 81–1519 and 82–1995 [W.D.Pa.Sept 9, 1985]); reversed (812 F.2d 834 [3rd Cir. 1987]); cert. denied (108 S.Ct. 495 [1987])
19.
General Motors Corporation (81 NLRB 779 [1949])
20.
Graphic Communications Workers Local 680 v Nabisco Brands Inc. (No.86–2648 [7th Cir. 1987])
21.
GreenJ, 1985, “The riskiness of private pensions”, in Pensions, Labor, and Individual Choice Ed. WiseD, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 357–378
22.
GustmanASteinmeierT L, 1988, “An analysis of pension benefit formulas pension wealth and incentives from pensions” WP-2535, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA
23.
HarrisA, (Ed.), 1987ERISA. The Law and the CodeBureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC)
24.
Inland Steel (77 NLRB No.1 [1947])
25.
Inland Steel v NLRB (170 F.2d 247 [1948]); cert. denied (336 US 960 [1949])
26.
KotlikoffLSmithD, 1983Pensions in the American EconomyUniversity of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
27.
Kross v Western Electric Company Inc. (534 F.Supp. 251 [1982]) aff'd in part and denied in part (701 F.2d 1238 [1983])
28.
McClendon v Continental Group Inc. (602 F.Supp 1492 [1985])
29.
McClendon v Continental Group Inc. (7 EBC 2403, 2404 [1986])
30.
Mason III et al v Continental Group Inc. (569 F.Supp 1241 [1983]) aff'd (763 F.2d 1219 [1985]) cert. denied (106 S.Ct. 863 [1986])
31.
Nemeth et al v Clark Equipment Company (677 F.Supp 899 (W.D.Mich. 1987])
32.
Note, 1949, “Proper subjects for collective bargaining: Ad hoc v predictive definition”Yale Law Journal58803–808
33.
Note, 1987, “Mixing politics and justice the office of the Solicitor General”Journal of Law and Politics4379–428
34.
Pacific Coast Assoc, v NLRB (304 F.2d 760 [1962])
35.
Parker et al v Connors Steel Co. (No.87–7607 [11th Cir. 1988])
36.
Payan et al v Continental Can Co. (No.85–4287-LEW [1987])
37.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 198713th Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 1987US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC)
38.
Pilot Life Insurance Company v Dedeaux (No.85–1043 US [1987])
39.
PosnerR, 1988Law and Literature: A Misunderstood RelationHarvard University Press, Cambridge, MA)
40.
RosenS, 1985, “Comment”, in Pensions, Labor, and Individual Choice Ed. WiseD, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 248–251
41.
Schaefer v First National Bank of Lincolnwood (509 F.2d 1287, 1297 [7th Cir. 1975])
42.
Titsch v Reliance Group Inc. (548 F.Supp 879 [1984])
43.
TrussellR, (Ed.), 1987US Labor and Employment Laws: 1987 EditionBureau of National Affairs, Washington, DC)
44.
ViscusiW K, 1985, “The structure of uncertainty and the use of nontransferable pensions as a mobility-reduction device”, in Pensions, Labor, and Individual Choice Ed. WiseD, (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL) pp 223–248
45.
VogelJ, 1987, “Containing medical and disability costs by cutting unhealthy employees: Does Section 510 of ERISA provide a remedy?”Notre Dame Law Review621024–1062
46.
Watkinson v Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co. Inc. (585 RSupp 879 [1984])
47.
West v Butler (621 F.2d 240 [6th Cir. (1980)]
48.
Wilson v Garcia (471 US 261 [1985])
49.
Zipf v American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (799 F.2d 889 [3rd Cir. 1986])
