Chisholm lawsuit addresses health insurance guarantee (contractual obligations in union contract)

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/articles/index.cfm?id=62984§ion=None

Mark Stodghill Duluth News Tribune
Published Monday, March 24, 2008

A Duluth lawyer, who won a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that his client’s right to the payment of health insurance premiums vested at the time she retired could not be terminated by her former employer, has brought a similar lawsuit against the Chisholm school district.

Frank Urbia, a 34-year Chisholm teacher, and his wife, Sharon, have sued Independent School District No. 695, alleging that the district breached its contractual obligations regarding its payment of retiree group health and hospitalization insurance set forth in the collective bargaining agreement in effect when Frank Urbia retired.

Duluth lawyer Tom Andrew filed the lawsuit last week in St. Louis County District Court in Hibbing as a proposed class action. Andrew said the proposed class contains about 100 Chisholm teachers and spouses.

Frank Urbia was employed by Chisholm schools as a teacher and coach from 1966 until he retired at age 57 in June 2000. He continues to coach the Chisholm High School girls and boys cross country teams. Sharon Urbia is a plaintiff as a dependent spouse.

The plaintiffs say the action is being brought to enforce the Chisholm school district’s contractual obligations to the plaintiffs that were set forth in the collective bargaining agreement between the school district and the teachers’ union, Chisholm Local 1276.

The plaintiffs allege that the school district violated its contractual obligations starting on July 1, 2003, by reducing its contribution towards premiums for Frank Urbia’s single coverage and its contribution towards his wife’s family coverage to the levels set forth in a July 1, 2003, to June 30, 2005, collective bargaining agreement, instead of the contribution levels in effect at the time Urbia retired.

FULL story at link.

Compare to today's DU story on cuts when no contract was in force: Supreme Court Allows Retiree Benefit Cuts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3241896