Maurer v. Joy Technologies, Inc., 212 F.3d 907 (6^th Cir. 2000); 2000 FED App. 0166P (6^th Cir.) -The Sixth Circuit addressed the question of whether retirement benefits in a collective bargaining agreement intended (or a court could imply that the parties intended) to vest retirement benefits.  The Steelworkers of America and several retirees filed suit after their employer sought to alter their benefits plans.  The plaintiffs argued the benefits were vested.  This court affirmed the district court's summary judgment for those plaintiffs who had retired before August 19, 1991, and summary judgment against those plaintiffs retiring after August 19, 1991.  The reason for this distinction was that Joy distributed a booklet on that date.  In this booklet Joy reserved the right to amend or terminate any of the plans.  Any reliance by plaintiffs on Joy's representations concerning the vesting of retirement benefits was not reasonable in the face of a clear reservation of rights clause after August 19, 1991.

            As for the first group of plaintiffs, this court pointed out that courts can consider that rights have vested under a collective bargaining agreement even if the parties did not explicitly set out in the agreement the intent to vest.  The inquiry into whether retiree insurance benefits continue beyond the expiration of the CBA depends upon the intent of the parties.  Retiree benefits, however, carry with them an inference that the parties  intended to continue benefits as long as the beneficiary remains a retiree.  UAW v. BVR Liquidating, Inc., 190 F.3d 768, 772 (6^th Cir. 1999); 1999 FED App. 0330P (6^th Cir.).  This court distinguished Sprague v. General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6^th Cir. 1998); 1998 FED App. 0004P (6^th Cir.) on the grounds that the present case involved a CBA (suggesting that negotiated-for benefits would less likely be illusory), rather than a benefit plan unilaterally bestowed by the employer.