![Challenger v. Local Union No. 1 of International Bridge](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Challenger v. Local Union No. 1 of International Bridge](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Challenger v. Local Union No. 1 of International Bridge
1980.C07.40628 619 F.2D 645
-
- 4,00 kr
-
- 4,00 kr
Publisher Description
The issue in this case is whether a dispute over the interpretation of the break-in-service provisions of a jointly administered pension plan is subject to compulsory arbitration under the terms of the plan, and, if so, whether this is permissible under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001-1381. The district court held that plaintiff, who claims pension benefits under the plan, was required to submit the dispute to arbitration. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. We affirm the judgment.