United Steel , Paper v. Kelsey-Hayes Company; Trw Automotive , Inc.; Trw Automotive Holdings Corporation

1
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b)
File Name: 15a0168p.06
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
_________________
UNITED STEEL , PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER,
M ANUFACTURING ENERGY, ALLIED I NDUSTRIAL AND
SERVICE W ORKERS I NTERNATIONAL UNION , AFL-
CIO-CLC; RONALD D. STRAIT ; DANNY O. STEVENS ,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY; TRW AUTOMOTIVE ,
I NC.; TRW AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS CORPORATION ,
Defendants-Appellants.
┐
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
┘
No. 13-1717
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint
No. 4:11-cv-15497—Gershwin A. Drain, District Judge.
Filed: July 28, 2015
Before: MERRITT, SUTTON, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
_________________
ORDER
_________________
GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. On May 6, 2014, defendants filed a petition for panel
rehearing, as well as a motion to stay consideration of the petition for panel rehearing, pending
the Supreme Court’s decision in M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, Supreme Court No. 13-
1010. On May 19, 2014, the majority of this panel granted appellant’s motion to stay
consideration of the petition for rehearing. On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its
decision in M & G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett, 135 S. Ct. 926 (2015), which overruled this
court’s decision in UAW v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1476 (6th Cir. 1983).
>

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 13-1717 United Steel, Paper, Forestry, et al. v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., et al. Page 2
We now GRANT appellant’s motion for panel rehearing and REMAND the case to the
district court for reconsideration, and further proceedings if necessary, in light of the Supreme
Court’s decision in Tackett. The prior opinion of this panel, United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing Energy, Allied Industries and Service Workers International Union v.
Kelsey-Hayes Co., 750 F.3d 546 (6th Cir. 2014), is accordingly VACATED.
MERRITT, Circuit Judge, dissenting. I do not agree that the court should remand this
case to the district court. I would conclude this case by deciding that the Kelsey-Hayes
employees who are retired are entitled to vested health care benefits under the collective
bargaining agreements.

-- 2 of 2 --