The judge agreed with the company that the applicable CBA section set out how the premiums would be calculated and that the dollar amounts were there as examples only. The judge analyzed the section thus: The first sentence establishes two significant things: 1) the effective date will be "1/1/2000" and 2) the premium sharing will be 11 percent of the monthly premium. The second sentence begins with "Based on the 1999 premiums for the TOP this is ..." and then sets out the rates that the Union relies upon. The third sentence specifies that the rates for the next year will be announced in October. The fourth sentence specifies that the increase shall not be more than 10 percent per year rounded to the nearest whole dollar amount. The judge, while noting that the language could have been clearer in the second sentence, did not think anyone could misinterpret how the premiums for the upcoming year would be calculated. Beginning in October 1999, based upon the premiums set by the third-party administrator for January 2000, the employees would be charged 11 percent of the premiums in each of the three categories. In future years, that calculation done in October could not increase the premiums by more than 10 percent. The union could not justify trying to use the 1999 figures as the base just because its members saw those numbers in the CBA before voting on it.

1. Premiums for health insurance have had a tendency to increase appreciatively from year to year. Has the union negotiated a "good" benefit provision here? Explain.

2. Do you think that the union's interpretation of the CBA language was reasonable? Explain.

3. Do you think the company should have made the language of the CBA provision more specific so that the union members voting on the contract would understand exactly what the premiums would be? Explain.