Articles Discussing Multi-Employer Pension Plans.

I – Overview of the Butch Lewis Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act

The much-heralded Butch Lewis Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act of 2021 (the “Butch Lewis Act of 2021”) is closer to becoming a reality as part of the COVID-19 relief bill, which is set for a vote in the

Without congressional intervention, about 100 multiemployer pension plans are expected to become insolvent in the next 20 years, and some much sooner.  In other words, for these pension plans, their liabilities to retired employees and current employees with vested benefits far outweigh their assets and incoming contributions.

House Education and Labor Chairman Bobby Scott (D-VA) recently introduced legislation that seeks to provide aid to multiemployer pension plans (MEPs) facing insolvency. Entitled the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act (EPPRA), the bill would fund this directly from the U.S. Treasury.

House Education and Labor Chairman Bobby Scott (D-VA) recently introduced legislation that seeks to rescue multiemployer pension plans (MEPs) facing insolvency. Entitled the Emergency Pension Plan Relief Act (EPPRA), the bill would fund this rescue directly from the U.S. Treasury.

On January 8, 2021, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) issued its final rule modifying the calculation of withdrawal liability by multiemployer pension plans.  This final rule amends the agency’s regulations on allocating unfunded vested benefits to withdrawing employers (29 C.F.R. § 4211) and notice, collection, and redetermination of

Approximately a quarter of the workforce covered by a traditional pension plan is in a multiemployer plan, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Many manufacturers that participate in such plans are unaware their largest contingent liability may stem from their allocable share of unfunded vested benefits, or withdrawal liability.

A global pandemic has not stopped multiemployer plans from conducting employer payroll audits.

What could be in the next stimulus bill in response to the COVID-19 pandemic? Congress reportedly is working on a bill (dubbed “Stimulus 3.5”) that includes additional funding for the Paycheck Protection Program created by the CARES Act.  Will the new stimulus bill address long-awaited reforms to the multiemployer pension

Since its passage late in 1980, the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) has proven to be a hindrance to the profitable operations of employers that contribute to multiemployer pension funds by imposing a surprise, and often expensive, obligation (the “withdrawal liability”) on employers across many industries. However, the construction industry is one of a few industries in which the impact of withdrawal liability upon employers has been eliminated.

For years, steep arbitration fees have made many employers think twice about contesting a questionable withdrawal liability determination. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (PBGC) approval of a lower fee schedule may ease that hurdle.

In a white paper and technical explanations, Republican Senators Charles E. Grassley (Chairman of the Senate Committee on Finance) and Lamar Alexander (Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) have proposed reforms to the multiemployer pension plan system.

A withdrawing employer must make withdrawal liability installment payments during the pendency of an arbitration proceeding contesting the existence of withdrawal liability, a federal court has affirmed, rejecting the employer’s attempt to recognize an equitable exception to the general “pay now, dispute later” requirement. Boilermaker-Blacksmith National Pension Trust v. PSF Industries, No. 18-2467-JWL (D. Kan. Nov. 27, 2019).

The Segal Group is the premier actuarial firm in the country providing services for hundreds of multi-employer pension funds. For almost 40 years it has used its own methodology, known as the “Segal Blend” to calculate employers’ withdrawal liability successfully without an adverse ruling by either a court or an arbitrator in hundreds of cases.

Contributing employers to multiemployer pension plans (“MEPPs”) are commonly surprised that their obligations to such a plan can extend well beyond the contributions required under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) negotiated with a union. The most significant extra-contractual obligation is withdrawal liability, a statutory exit fee imposed on employers that leave a plan that has unfunded vested benefits.

Congress enacted the withdrawal liability provisions of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) with the ultimate goal of protecting participants and beneficiaries entitled to benefits from multiemployer pension plans. Congress observed that such plans are financially burdened whenever an employer withdraws and permanently ceases to pay contributions and decided that the burden should be borne by the withdrawn employer. Consistent with this remedial purpose, the statute often produces seemingly harsh and/or unfair results (at least from the employer perspective.) The Third Circuit’s recent non-precedential decision in Nitterhouse Concrete Products, Inc. v. Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International Union aptly illustrates this principle.