Multiemployer plan is still green (for 2009). Would have been red but for the election to continue with the 2008 status. Trustees have amended the plan "unilaterally" to require a minimum contribution rate, regardless of what the employer's collective bargaining agreement with the union says. Is anyone else experiencing this?

Unless the right to do that is granted in the trust agreement or the CBA, they do not have the authority to enforce that.

That's what I thought. Which is why the trustees first amended the plan document (and presumably the trust agreement) to give themselves the right to increase an employer's liability notwithstanding the CBA. After they removed the limitation of liability of the employer, they then amended the plan document to require a minimum contribution rate, notwithstanding the CBA.

So, can the trustees do this?? Amend the trust agreement/plan document to remove any provisions which would have prevented them from imposing contribution levels, and then impose contribution levels??

Your situation sounds very similar to what I am facing on behalf of a few clients with a fund out of KS.

The Fund was "green" in 08 and elected to stay "green" in 09 even though it was certified "red" For 10, they are requesting contribution increases pursuant to an amendment they just made to the plan.

But for this amendment and the "green" election, they could implement a rehabilitation plan this year. However, since they are "green" due to the WRERA sanctioned election, they cannot be "red" until next year. And they won't know that until Feb or March. So, really, the earliest they could put into place a rehab plan is next year.

However, the plan appears to have been amended to allow for increased contributions beyond what is in the CBA. Basically our clients now have to contribute whatever the Trustees say we have to contribute, regardless of whats in the CBA.

I haven't seen a copy of the amendment yet, but I just cant understand how this is sanctioned by the PPA and its progeny. Basically they are saying that by assenting to the plan at one point, we are assenting to any change they may make in the future. Crazy.

That's the plan I'm dealing with, based in Kansas City. Request a copy of the latest plan document (and the subsquent amendment mandating a minimum contribution) and compare it to the previous one, and you will see what they did.