Richardson v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.

We must delve into complex issues of statutory and contractual interpretation as we determine a company’s liability for shutdown pension benefits following sale and eventual closure of a steel plant.

I

The appellants are former employees of Bethlehem Steel Corporation (“BSC”), who seek various pension benefits from their former employer. While they were employed at BSC, BSC and the United Steel Workers of America entered into a Pension Agreement (“Agreement”), a collectively bargained agreement governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. A different document, the Pension Plan of BSC (“Plan”), implements the terms of the Agreement. The Plan is administered by the General Pension Board.

At issue here are so-called Rule-of-65 and 70/80 benefits provided under sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the Plan, respectively. These benefits are provided to employees who satisfy certain age and service requirements and whose “continuous service is broken by reason of a permanent shutdown of a plant.” 1 *984 For this reason, the benefits are termed “shutdown benefits.”

The controversy surrounding the shutdown benefits began in 1982 when the BSC Board of…