Reply – Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE
Your Name
Subject
Message
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: TUTOR PERINI/HUDSON YARDS PRESS RELEASE
— by Ted Ted
RETIREE PENSIONS: "SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE BENEFIT" PRECEDENT

United States Supreme Court
UMWA HEALTH & RETIREMENT FUNDS v. ROBINSON, (1982)
No. 81-61
Argued: January 13, 1982    Decided: March 8, 1982


- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/455/562.html#sthash.HTJ4Yy6I.dpuf


"Our interpretation of the purpose of the "sole and exclusive benefit" requirement is reinforced by the other requirements of 302(c)(5). Section 302(c)(5) is an exception in a criminal statute that broadly prohibits employers from making direct or indirect payments to unions or union officials. Each of the specific conditions that must be satisfied to exempt employer contributions to pension funds from the criminal sanction is consistent with the nondiversion purpose. The fund must be established "for the sole and exclusive benefit" of employees and their families and dependents; contributions must be held in trust for that purpose and must be used exclusively for health, retirement, death, disability, or unemployment benefits; the basis for paying benefits must be specified in a written agreement; and the fund must be jointly administered by representatives of management and labor. 11 All the conditions in the section fortify the basic requirement that employer contributions be administered for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees. None of the conditions places any restriction on the allocation of the funds among the persons protected by 302(c)(5)." [455 U.S. 562, 573]  


- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/455/562.html#sthash.HTJ4Yy6I.dpuf