In a 5-4 ruling the state Supreme Court today ordered the Port of Seattle to treat health care benefits for its employees like pension benefits and pay them into retirement. The case is Navlet v. Port of Seattle. The majority ruled:
. . . the Port is obligated to provide retirement welfare benefits for life to Appellants who have satisfied the eligibility requirements to receive such benefits . . . The trial court held that Appellants had no vested right to receive retirement welfare benefits because the [Collective Bargaining Agreement] CBA did not “unambiguously” vest the welfare benefits beyond the duration of the CBA itself. The court misconstrued our precedent regarding the creation of a vested right to retirement benefits. The conferral of compensatory retirement welfare benefits through a collective bargaining agreement creates a vested right for eligible re! tirees absent express language in the agreement specifically limiting the right to such benefits.
Sharply disagreeing the minority writes:
I have great sympathy for the workers in this case, but the fact is that their contractual agreement with the Port does not authorize the benefits they seek. The unfortunate result of the majority opinion is that many employers will cease providing any health care benefits at all to employees in order to avoid the possibility of incurring an obligation to provide benefits for life -- at the least they will cease providing retiree health care benefits. The majority opinion is likely to affect a great many employees who, although not before us in this case, will suffer loss of health coverage and possibly loss of jobs before they acquire vested rights under the majority opinion.
. . . Ultimately, in the absence of anything in the parties’ agreement that states that a vested right to health care benefits for life is intended by the employer, the court is asserting itself as a super-legislature. The court should refrain from overstepping its constitutional role in this way.
This case is yet another example of a 5-4 ruling leaving the minority questioning whether the majority understands its constitutional role.
