mal

My understanding of the regulations with respect to voluntary arbitration is that the process is binding (if voluntary), but that all costs associated with the process must be paid by the plan. Since even a simple arbitration costs $3,000-$5,000 (exclusive of attorney fees), our plans have stayed away from arbitration. We do not want to incur the unnecessary costs associated with frivilous appeals. In the long run I personally believe that very few participants will bring a 502 action, and even if they do, the costs of defense will be much less than several arbitrations.

Request a copy of the summary plan description (spd) from your employer. The spd will outline all available distribution options and rules. You seem to be referring to a "hardship withdraw." Plan sponsors of a 401(k) plan can allow participants to take a withdraw when they show immediate and heavy financial need. (For example, if the person is attempting to come up with the money to buy first home.) In order to allow a withdraw, the plan administrator needs to document the financial need...for the benefit of the IRS. I am unsure whether 403(B) plans can permit such withdraws. Good luck.

I have a group of Trustees who are pushing for the following: 1. A stipend equal to 8 hrs foreman-journeyman pay for a retiree who occassionally attends conferences in his capacity as a trustee. This person is not receiving any pay from a contributing employer or the union, but does receive a monthly annuity check from the plan. 2. In addition to the "lost wages" (paid to the trustees who do not receive regular, full-time wages from the union or a contributing employer) this board wants to pay trustees at the regular foreman-journeymen rate for time spent at seminars during non-working hours. For example, if Bob leaves for a seminar on Friday evening, he wants to be compensated for his time spent in class on Saturday and Sunday, even though he is not missing any work hours as a result of the seminar. This group already pushes the limits of what can be considered reasonable travel expenses and I am not comfortable with the new proposals. Nonetheless, I have been unable to find a clear answer by looking at ERISA 406,408 and the regs. How do other plans handle this? Are there any good articles covering this topic? Any suggestions? Thanks.

I assume you mean sufficent for purposes of a QDRO. I review and draft such orders and can tell you that I would require only a time-stamped copy from the clerk's office which has the judge's signature. The signature of the parties would seem to be required only if it is deemed necessary by state domestic relations law.

I was recently asked to represent a plan whose consultant has not made the required GUST filing. I know how to take care of this issue, but when making the required amendments I noticed that it has NO language pertaining to Direct Rollovers. My recollection is that this was required beginning in 1994 or 1995?? Nonetheless the plan did receive a determination letter in 1995 without the rollover language. I am including EGTRRA language in the restatement and could include an entire section on rollovers. Operationally, I am told that the plan has allowed rollovers in rare instances of small benefit cashouts, etc. Otherwise the form of benefit is a straight life annuity or a QJSA. How would this best be handled?

Most of our TPA's have been retained (at an additional cost) to make a first level determination. Our trustees will be hearing and deciding any final appeals. I have seen very few TPA's willing to make the final decision.

Check out Deak v. Masters & Mates Pension Fund...I am not sure on the spelling...but I think it came out of CA. In that case multiemployer plan fiduciaries were found to have violated ERISA by discriminating against retirees who returned to work for non-union contractors. The applicable suspension period was much longer for those retirees who went to work non-union versus those who stayed with contributing employers. The court found no rational basis that the plan should treat these people differently.

Many multiemployer health plans heavily subsidize the cost of retiree coverage until the retiree is Medicare eligible. This is obviously a huge financial burden. I have recently heard of certain multiemployer plans that are conditioning the retiree health care subsidy on one's active membership in the union. The idea is to eliminate the subsidy to those retirees who are no longer supporting the organizing/lobbying efforts of the union. I know that qualified retirement plans cannot discriminate against retirees (w/ respect to suspension of benefits) based on his union or non-union status. Is there any similar restriction on this action by a health fund? Thanks for your time.