Pittsburgh MacK Sales & Service, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 66

The Dispute
Pittsburgh Mack Sales & Service, a truck dealership, had a contract with Operating Engineers Local Union No. 66 that included a special provision. This provision said the union would protect the company from certain pension-related costs if the company ever stopped participating in the union's multi-employer pension plan. When these costs came up, a lower court said this type of agreement was against public policy and threw out the case.

The Court's Decision
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with the lower court and sent the case back for further review. The appeals court ruled that agreements where unions promise to protect employers from pension withdrawal costs are not automatically illegal or against public policy. These contracts can be valid and enforceable.

What This Means for Workers
This ruling affects workers in unions that participate in multi-employer pension plans. It allows unions to negotiate contracts where they take on financial responsibility for certain pension costs when employers leave the plan. While this gives unions more bargaining flexibility, workers should understand that such agreements could potentially impact how pension funds are managed and what financial obligations their union might face in the future.