Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

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

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Labor Donate to DU
Omaha Steve Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-25-08 02:23 PM
Original message
Chisholm lawsuit addresses health insurance guarantee (contractual obligations in union contract)

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 clients 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 districts 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 Urbias single coverage and its contribution towards his wifes 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

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Labor Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC