(Violation of ERISA)   (Violation of Collective Bargaining Agreements)   1.  Certify the Plaintiff Class and two subclasses under Rule 23 of the Federal  Rules of Civil Procedure;   11. Maintenance of this action will promote the efficient administration of justice  by obviating the need of numerous individual members, many of who do not have  resources to independently retain counsel, to commence their own actions.    12. Maintenance of this action as a class action will promote the equitable  administration of justice since pursuing claims on an individual basis would be  disproportionately expensive.    13. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of the controversy.    14. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class  would create a risk of inconsistent adjudication with respect to individual members of  the class, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for the parties  opposing the class.    15. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the class  would create a risk of adjudication with respect to individual members of the class that  would, as a practical matter, substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their  interests.   16. Kraft Heinz operates meat processing plants and other food processing  facilities throughout the country.  It operates a meat processing plant located in  Madison, Wisconsin under a subsidiary called Oscar Mayer Foods, Inc.    18. Kraft Heinz has provided health and prescription drug insurance to  employees and retirees represented by UFCW Local 538 in accordance with the terms  of its CBA’s. Under the terms of these CBA’s, Plaintiffs and other Class Members  (“Plaintiff Class”) continue to pay the same premium contributions they paid when they  were active employees prior to their retirement.     19. During negotiations for the CBA effective December 9, 2013, Kraft Heinz  representatives proposed, “Coverage under the Company retiree medical plan shall  terminate when the retiree attains age 65 or becomes eligible for Medicare.”   2.  Declare Kraft Heinz has violated the CBA’s with UFCW Local 538 by  unilaterally terminating Plaintiff Class’ health and prescription drug insurance plans;       20.  UFCW Local 538 representatives rejected this proposal and Kraft Heinz  subsequently withdrew it from the bargaining table.  Plaintiff Class Members continued  to receive health and prescription drug insurance under the same terms and conditions  as they previously enjoyed.   21. By letter dated September 1, 2015, Kraft Heinz informed Plaintiff Class that  effective January 1, 2016, their current retiree health and prescription drug insurance  plans would be terminated.    22.  For certain members of the Plaintiff Class, Kraft Heinz provided the option of  participating in OneExchange, a privately operated medicare insurance exchange.   (These Class Members are hereinafter referred to as the “OneExchange Subclass”).   The OneExchange Sublcass members are required to pay out-of-pocket all premiums  and other costs of supplemental medicare health and prescription drug insurance.       24. OneExchange Sublass members who participate in OneExchange will be  forced to bear the costs of any differences in the amounts of Kraft Heinz’ contributions  to their HRA’s and the actual costs of obtaining comparable health and prescription drug  coverage, including premium contributions.   They will also be forced to bear the costs  of future increases in the amounts of premium contributions they incur in obtaining  supplemental medicare health and prescription drug insurance. At some point, even  with the HRA, the amount of premium contributions OneExchange Subclass members  pay will exceed the amount of premiums contributions they currently pay.    25.  By letter dated September 1, 2015, Kraft Heinz notified other members of  Plaintiff Class who were covered by health and prescription drug insurance plans  sponsored by the Aetna Life Insurance Company and its affiliates (hereinafter referred  to as the “Aetna Subclass”) that they had the option of enrolling in the Aetna Medicare  Advantage Preferred Provider Organization with Extended Service Area (“Aetna  Medicare Advantage PPO ESA Plan”), a medicare plan available under Part C of  Medicare.   27.  Under their prior Aetna health and prescription drug insurance plans, the  Aetna Subclass was not responsible for any copays or co-insurance.    28.  Under the Aetna Medicare Advantage PPO ESA Plan, Aetna Sublcass  members’ spouses and dependents are not covered.   29. Under their prior Aetna health and prescription drug insurance plans, the  Aetna Subclass’s spouses and eligible dependents were covered and could continue  coverage under the same terms after the death of the Aetna Subclass member.   3. Declare Kraft Heinz has violated ERISA by altering the terms of its health and  prescription drug insurance plans to deviate from the health and prescription drug  insurance plans provided to Plaintiff Class by terminating the plans and replacing them  with the plans announced in the September 1, 2015 letters;    30.  Kraft Heinz did not negotiate with UFCW Local 538 the termination of  Plaintiff Class’ health and prescription drug insurance plans, or any of the changes  announced in the September 1, 2015 letters to either the OneExchange Sublcass or the  Aetna Subclass.    31. UFCW Local 538 did not agree to the termination of the health and  prescription drug plans covering Plaintiff Class or any of the changes announced in the  September 1, 2015 letters to either the OneExchange Sublcass or the Aetna Subclass.   32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-31 above as though fully set  forth herein.    33. The CBA’s between Kraft Heinz and UFCW Local 538 in effect when Plaintiff  Class retired require Kraft Heinz to provide retiree health and prescription drug  insurance coverage for them.   35.  The CBA’s covering the OneExchange Subclass required that the retiree  health and prescription drug insurance be provided at the same premium rate they paid  as active employees at the time they retired.   36. The termination of the Plaintiff Class’ health and prescription drug insurance  plans and the replacement coverage announced in the September 1, 2015 letters  violate the terms of the CBA’s, Section 301 of the LMRA, and the vested rights of the  Plaintiff Class to receive the retiree health and prescription drug insurance coverage.   37. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-36 above as though fully set  forth herein.    38. The health and prescription drug insurance plans covering Plaintiff Class are  employee welfare benefit plan as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) and are governed by  the Employee Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. §1001, et seq.    39. Plaintiff Class are participants of these plans within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.  § 1002(7).    4. Order Kraft Heinz to cease and desist from violating the CBA’s and the terms  of the Plaintiff Class’ health and prescription drug insurance plans;    5. Order Kraft Heinz affirmatively to:   a. restore the Plaintiff Class’ health and prescription drug plans in effect  prior to January 1, 2016;   b. make whole all Plaintiff Class members for all losses proximately  caused by the changes; and,   6.  Order Defendant to pay attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §  1132(g).    7. Individual Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all former UFCW  Local 538-represented employees of Kraft Heinz who are participants in the Kraft Heinz  retiree health and prescription drug insurance plans and who are age 65 or over.   Plaintiffs seek two subclasses:  (a) all class members who were covered by health and  prescription drug insurance plans sponsored by Aetna; and, (b) all class members who  were covered by health and prescription drug insurance plans sponsored by other  providers. There are approximately 500 members of the proposed class.     8.  There are questions of law and fact common to the class, including the  following: whether Kraft Heinz unilaterally reduced retiree health insurance benefits for  its UFCW Local 538-represented retirees by terminating their coverage, increasing their  premiums and changing their health insurance benefits; whether such reduction violates  the terms of the CBA’s between Kraft Heinz and UFCW Local 538; whether such  reduction violates ERISA; and, whether Kraft Heinz can establish any defenses  justifying its conduct.    9.  The claims of the Plaintiffs are typical of the class they seek to represent and  will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the named  Plaintiffs are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the class. The named  plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are experienced in class action litigation.   