Voyk v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 198 F.3d 599 (6^th Cir. 1999) 1999 FED App. 0398P (6^th Cir.)-Voyk, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated retired officers and employees of defendant Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("BLE"), sued the union claiming that it unlawfully failed to pay promised retiree health benefits.  This court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the BLE.

Voyk asserted four different basis for recovery:  (1) promissory estoppel; (2) breach of agreement; (3) breach of fiduciary duty; and (4) ERISA. Voyk’s allegations arose out of an decision by the Cooperating Railway Labor Organizations ("CRLO"), of which BLE was a part.  The member unions voted to amend their Plan document so that participants would have to contribute individually at a rate determined by their union to be eligible for health benefits.  BLE elected to require each of its retirees and their dependents to contribute $100 per month per covered person to maintain their health insurance coverage.

The court noted that the Plan reserved, at all pertinent times, the right "to terminate, suspend, withdraw, amend or modify the Plan in whole or in part at any time."  Plaintiff’s evidence of letters and oral communications promising lifetime coverage free of charge were not binding.  Citing Sprague v. General Motors, 133 F.3d 388 (6^th Cir. 1998) (1998 FED App. 0004P (6^th Cir.).  This court stated that oral communications and assurances of lifetime coverage do not alter the terms of the written plan, nor can they be applied to an equitable estoppel defense where the plan terms are unambiguous.

The plaintiffs next argued that the $100 contribution requirement was not enforceable because the plan did not set forth the amount of contributions.  This violated ERISA’s requirement that "every employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument."  This court found that neither ERISA nor the corresponding regulations require that the amount of the contribution be set out specifically in written plan documents.

Next, the district court found that the BLE was not a fiduciary with respect to the plan. BLE did not achieve discretionary authority or responsibility when it designed the plan terms.  Establishing, terminating, or amending a plan are not fiduciary functions.  Managing assets or administering a plan according to its terms are fiduciary functions.  Aside from determining whether BLE was a fiduciary, this court found that it did not violate fiduciary duties by depositing the monthly retiree contributions into a general checking account rather than a separate trust account.  The court reasoned that the contributions to BLE do not become "plan assets" until the time the BLE transmits the funds to the plan administrator, assuming that the transmission takes place within a reasonable time.