LONGVIEW, Washington (From The Daily News) -- Four former Weyerhaeuser Co. employees have filed a class-action lawsuit against the company in attempt to regain retiree healthcare benefits.

In the case, filed in a federal court in Eugene Wednesday, employees argue that Weyerhaeuser reneged on its promise to provide lifetime health care coverage for salaried employees.

The case would affect between 4,000 to 5,000 retirees and spouses nationwide.

"I retired in 1991 and received healthcare benefits for me and my wife for 24 years before it was cut off. It was a complete shock and betrayal of Weyerhaeuser's commitment to me when I was hired to see what was promised as a lifetime benefit completely eliminated," Jim Kepner of Multnomah County, one of four class representatives in the case, said in a press release.

The other three plaintiffs are Bryon Carrier of Springfield, Ore.; Steven Shull of Fox Island, Wash.; and Erik Saukkonen of Deschutes County, Ore.

The Federal Way-based forestry company declined to comment for this story Thursday. It previously said it had not made any legally binding promises to the workers.

In effort to curb rising medical costs, Weyerhaeuser in January 2015 cut off a post-Medicare health care account for all former salaried employees who retired after 1990. The account pays for premiums and out-of-pocket expenses for prescription drugs, vision and dental expenses not covered by Medicare. The company estimated at the time that it would save $70 million over the employees' lifetimes, but employees peg the number at $100 million.

The typical benefit was about $1,324 per a person per a year, according to the formal complaint, and represented an annual cost to the company of $5.5 million.

Retirees say they were repeatedly reassured, both verbally and in writing, that they would receive medical benefits for life. Many decided to break away from the hourly union jobs on an attractive retirement package for salaried workers.

"That benefit was part of the compensation package that these retirees accepted when they started their careers with Weyerhaeuser and passed on other opportunities in exchange for Weyerhaeuser's promise of a secure retirement that included lifetime healthcare benefits," the plaintiff's attorney, Michael E. Haglund, said in a press release.

Shull, for example, passed over a career as a commercial airline pilot and an accounting firm, which he said reduced his lifetime earnings by as much as 50 percent, according to the plaintiffs' complaint.

Before filing the case, Shull was part of a "steering committee" of 17 Washington-based retirees who had been trying to persuade the company to reinstate benefits, said Jim Taylor of Tacoma, a retired productions manager/ human resources manager. Taylor previously worked at Norpac in Longview for 21 years, and logged another 10 years for Weyerhaeuser at locations in the U.S. and Canada.

Taylor said the Washington group negotiated with Weyerhaeuser for about 16 months to try to reach a settlement. The company did offer a proposed settlement at one point, he said, but he declined to offer details.

"We were just so far apart in what would be acceptable to retirees that we decided we would go the legal route," he said. That's when Taylor and Shull joined with the Oregon retirees to form a legal case, he said.

"Many retirees feel that it's unjust what they've done, based on the contribution we've made as managers and salaried employees and the hours we put in that were not compensated as managers -- overtime and weekends and holidays and being on call," Taylor said.

The U.S. retirees point to a similar case in 2011 to 2012, when British Columbia Superior Court ruled in favor of five former Weyerhaeuser/MacMillan Bloedel workers who fought to maintain their health benefits after the company tried reduce coverage. The Canadian court case has no legal bearing here, though. U.S. federal law does not require private employers to provide or continue health benefits after retirement--unless it has made a clear promise to do.

The company has pointed to a clause in its 1990 summary plan description in which it states that it reserves the right to change or terminate the retiree plan in the future, according to court documents. But employees argue that they were hired before this clause went into effect. Weyerhaeuser has 21 days to file a response to the complaint.