International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America et al v. Honeywell International Inc.

Filing 42

ORDER Certifying Class Action re: 10 . Signed by District Judge Denise Page Hood. (LSau)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE,
AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT
WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW); and
THOMAS BODE, BRUCE EATON,
WILLIAM BURNS, PETER ANTONELLIS, and
LARRY PRESTON, for themselves and
others similarly-situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 11-CV-14036
Class Action
Honorable Denise Page Hood

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER CERTIFYING CLASS ACTION
Pursuant to the parties’ consent and to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification
(Docket No. 10), defendant Honeywell International Inc. not opposing class certification (Docket
No. 21), and the Court having considered the papers, evidence, and arguments submitted by the
parties and being otherwise advised, it is hereby ordered:
1.

The Court finds that the prerequisites for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(a) and (b)(1) and (2) and (g) are satisfied.
2.

The Court finds that the class consists of approximately 4,000 persons who retired

from Honeywell (and its predecessors), including retirees’ dependents and surviving spouses,
who are eligible to receive retirement healthcare under the master collective bargaining
agreements between UAW and Honeywell, excluding any retirees, dependents, and surviving

spouses who are subject to the resolution of Ferguson v. Bendix Commercial Vehicles, Case No.
04-cv-590 (N.D. Ohio).
3.

The Court finds that the class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is

impracticable, that there are questions of law and fact common to the class, that the claims for
lifetime retiree health benefits and that Honeywell cannot impose premium expenses on the
class, made by the individual plaintiffs under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations
Act (29 U.S.C. § 185) and Section 502(a) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)) are typical of the claims made by the class and that defendant’s defenses to
those claims are typically applicable to the class, and that the individual plaintiffs—retirees
Thomas Bode, Bruce Eaton, William Burns, Peter Antonellis, and Larry Preston—and their
counsel—William Wertheimer, Stuart M. Israel, and John G. Adam—will fairly and adequately
represent the class, satisfying the prerequisites to class certification in Rule 23(a)(1)-(4) and (g).
4.

The Court finds that the conduct and planned conduct of defendant was

undertaken on grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate any final injunctive
or declaratory relief applicable to the class as a whole, and that class certification is appropriate
to avoid inconsistent or varying adjudications, satisfying the standards for certification under
Rules 23(b)(2) and (1).
5.

The class is hereby certified, consistent with the preceding paragraphs, pursuant

to Rules 23(a)(1)-(4), (b)(1) and (2), and (g).
6.

As requested by the parties, certification is without prejudice to any party’s right

to request that the Court divide the class into subclasses, if it is determined by the Court that
circumstances warrant such division.
7.

As requested by the parties, the Court will direct appropriate notice to the class

2

pursuant to Rule 23(c)(2)(A).
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class [Docket No. 10, filed October
11, 2011] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/Denise Page Hood
Denise Page Hood
United States District Judge
Dated: June 19, 2012
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record on
June 19, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/LaShawn R. Saulsberry
Case Manager

3