Former vice president says he refused a 20% pay cut tied to his employer's own mistake
A 72-year-old union officer says he was fired after 48 years on the job for refusing a roughly 20% pay cut tied to his employer's own pension mistake.
That is the core of a lawsuit Michael Dalpiaz filed on April 22, 2026 against the International Union, United Mine Workers of America and its International President, Brian Sanson, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. The case, Dalpiaz v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America, No. 2:26-cv-00337, lands squarely in territory HR leaders know well: required pension distributions, uneven treatment of similarly situated employees, and a termination that the former officer says was dressed up as insubordination.
According to the filing, Dalpiaz spent more than 48 years with the UMWA and most recently served as International District Vice President of District 22 and as a member of the International Executive Board. He says he performed his duties faithfully and received no disciplinary action or complaints about his performance until the dispute that ended his career.
The problem, he alleges, began with the union's own paperwork. Under UMWA bylaws, he was supposed to start drawing his pension at age 70½. He didn't, he claims, because of the union's administrative error. When the oversight came to light, Dalpiaz says the UMWA acknowledged he was owed back pension payments. But instead of simply paying what was owed and keeping his salary intact going forward, he alleges, the union demanded he take approximately a 20% salary reduction until his unpaid salary matched the pension back pay owed to him. In plain terms, the complaint says he was effectively asked to work without compensation to cover the union's own mistake.
What is likely to catch the eye of any HR executive is what Dalpiaz says happened to other people in the same situation. He alleges, upon information and belief, that former UMWA President Cecil Roberts, age 77, and six others were in the identical pension predicament. Roberts and four of those others, he claims, were permitted to receive both their full salary and their pension back pay without any reduction. Dalpiaz says he asked to sit down and negotiate a resolution and was terminated instead, on November 17, 2025, on grounds of insubordination for refusing to submit pension paperwork. He calls that reason pretextual and says age was the real driver.
He also alleges the International Executive Board refused to hear his written appeal and instead entertained a motion to ratify the termination, which he argues violated both the union's constitution and federal due-process protections for union members under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.
The suit brings claims for age discrimination under the ADEA, wrongful discharge under the LMRDA, breach of contract, violation of the union's constitution and bylaws, disparate treatment and denial of equal protection, quantum meruit/unjust enrichment, and violation of public policy. Dalpiaz is seeking reinstatement or front pay, back pay, liquidated and compensatory damages, punitive damages against Sanson personally, and unpaid items including $258 in business expenses, $290 in parking, 42 days of vacation, and 5 days of sick leave.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The defendants have not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled.
