Plaintiffs, retired officers and employees of defendant Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers ("BLE'), sued the union claiming that it unlawfully failed to pay the plaintiffs promised retirement benefits and asserting four different bases for recovery: [1] promissory estoppel; [2] breach of agreement; [3] breach of fiduciary duty; and [4] the Employment [sic] Retirement Income Security Act ('ERISA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 1001 et seq. Both sides in this controversy moved for summary judgment in the district court, which ruled initially for defendant on claims [3] and [4] enunciated above. After this court's decision in Sprague v. General Motors, 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (en banc), the district court (a different judge) also granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the first two claims. Plaintiffs have timely appealed, and we now AFFIRM. [Voyk v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, No. 98-3937 (6th Cir. Dec. 1, 1999)]