Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Maas v. Dubuque Packing Co.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Decided February 8, 1985No. 84-1388Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
FLOYD R. GIBSON,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the Board has the authority to determine the propriety of actuarial computations and funding levels, for the Plan specifically delegates this authority to the Board in § 9.4(b). Thus, I concur with the majority on this issue. However, I do not agree that § 9.4(c) of the Plan authorizes the Board to determine the effectiveness of the termination notice sent by the Company to the Union. Thus, as to this issue, I respectfully dissent.
Before and after the collective bargaining agreement was…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1960
- John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. LivingstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Mastro Plastics Corp. v. National Labor Relations BoardSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. A & P Steel, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.