stating that if there is ambiguity in a provision of a CBA, a court may resort to extrinsic evidence to ascertain whether the parties intended for the benefits to survive the agreement
Summary of this case from Zino v. Whirlpool Corp.No. 99-1329.
April 17, 2000.
C.A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 195 F. 3d 692.
stating that if there is ambiguity in a provision of a CBA, a court may resort to extrinsic evidence to ascertain whether the parties intended for the benefits to survive the agreement
Summary of this case from Zino v. Whirlpool Corp.stating that if there is ambiguity in a provision of a CBA, a court may resort to extrinsic evidence to ascertain whether the parties intended for the benefits to survive the agreement
Summary of this case from Zino v. Whirlpool Corp.Full title:GRAYSON, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF COLLINS, DECEASED v. ROYER
Court:U.S.
Date published: Apr 17, 2000
Schad, 452 U.S. at 71. We ourselves explained in DiMa [Corp. v. Town of Hallie, 185 F.3d 823 (7th Cir. 1999),…
Keeney v. LarkinRaab v. Gen. Physics Corp., 4 F.3d 286, 289 (4th Cir. 1993) (citing Howard v. Haddad, 962 F.2d 328 (4th Cir.…