Leaderboard

Good plan!

More than likely, the "shop steward" is wrong (because shop stewards are ALWAYS wrong!). At the time he moved into an excluded class in the non-union plan, he most likely was NO LONGER ELIGIBLE to defer into that plan! That is probably one error that needs to be fixed. Of course, do read the FINE document to make sure there is no special language that says otherwise. As to the Union Plan, what is the eligibility to enter? More than likely it includes language that handles this, and I doubt it requires one year of UNION participation (vs ANY employment with the employer) and he probably was eligible upon the transfer, but RTFD to make sure of the applicable provisions.

You will have 1000 hours by the time you leave (7/1), therefore you meet the requirements to move up on the vesting schedule for that year. Doesn't matter when they show it on your account, you will be entitled to the next year, which takes you to 100%.

If your plan uses the 1000 hour rule and work 1000 in the year you will be credited with a year of vesting service, regardless of when the record keeper gets verification of you working 1000 hours in the plan year.

You are wrong. Sorry.

Whether or not the condition is allowable (without researching it, I am leaning toward not), it is certainly ill-advised. If the plan came under audit, and the auditor asked you why a particular person did not receive a match, how do you demonstrate that they did not give 2 weeks' notice? You can't open their file and pull out the non-notice.

There is no official guidance on the matter yet, but my understanding is: They can amend the plan now, or any time up through November 30, 2020, to be a 3% SHNEC for 2020, effective retroactive to 1/1/2020 They can amend the plan any time up through December 31, 2021 to be a 4% SHNEC for 2020 Under either of the above, the plan will be exempt from the ADP test for 2020 The plan will be subject to the ACP test on the match, since the ACP safe harbor still requires a notice before the beginning of the plan year

Only the benefits accrued as of the effective date of the amendment are protected from cutback. In other words participants have to be 100% vested in all their contributions up through 12/31/2017, and contributions made on or after 1/1/18 would be subject to the new schedule. This is what is legally required, but plans can choose to be more lenient. For example in your case they might choose to let anyone who was a participant as of 12/31/17 remain under the old schedule even with respect to future contributions, so that they do not have to track vesting separately for different portions of their accounts. A well-written amendment should be explicit about to whom the new schedule applies, and when. My guess is that the participant in question is subject to the new vesting schedule since she had no balance on the effective date, but it will depend on exactly what the amendment says.