Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ROBERTSON v. UNITED MINE WORKERS AMERICA WELFARE AND RETIREMENT FUND (05/24/66)

SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: May 24, 1966.

ROBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA WELFARE AND RETIREMENT FUND

Appeal from decree of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, April T., 1959, No. 1167, in case of David Robertson v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund and Consolidated Coal Company.

COUNSEL

Louis Vaira, for appellant.

Charles L. Widman, of the Washington, D. C., Bar, and Michael J. Boyle, with them Alexander Unkovic, and Meyer, Unkovic & Scott, and Val J. Mitch, and Harold H. Bacon, of the Washington, D. C., Bar, for appellees.

Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and O'Brien, JJ.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 421 Pa. Page 350]

In this action in equity, the plaintiff, a retired coal miner, seeks to compel the defendants, the Trustees of the United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund, to pay him pension benefits. From a final decree in the court below dismissing the complaint, this appeal was filed.

[ 421 Pa. Page 351]

Under the trust agreement, the Trustees are given full and complete authority with respect to questions of coverage and eligibility, subject to the stated purposes of the fund and the terms of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (29 U.S.C. ยง 186). Acting in accordance with this authority, they formulated four requirements that one must meet in order to qualify for a pension. One stipulated that to be eligible, the applicant must have completed twenty years of classified service in the anthracite industry during the thirty-year period immediately preceding the filing of the application. The defendants-trustee denied plaintiff's application for the reason that he did not meet this requirement.

After hearing, the chancellor below concluded that the denial of plaintiff's application for pension on the ground stated was supported by substantial evidence, and the trustees' decision was not arbitrary or capricious. The court en banc affirmed these conclusions.

We affirm. The record facts amply sustain the conclusions of the court below.

Decree affirmed. Each party to pay own costs.

Disposition

Decree affirmed.

19660524

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.