TimR

Thank you all - I was finding these same answers everywhere I looked. Glad to hear a consensus on here as well.

The son of a retiree called in to our corporate office and explained the following situation. His father is drawing social security as well as the company pension. He is applying for certain Medicaid programs that have limits to monthly income. When the retiree combines social security plus pension, he is over the limit for the medicaid program he wants to apply for. The retiree determined that the medicaid benefits are more important than the amount of his monthly pension. Is it possible to refuse/stop/suspend pension payments? Is it different based on each plan document? Are there overall rules governing this? I reached out to the actuaries we use and they said from their research, it is impossible for him to discontinue receiving the pension payments.

After reading this information, I think I've boiled my question down to this: I am confident the employee's hire date is 1/15/18. No rule of parity applies b/c EE was never in plan. All time since 1/15/18 appears to be 1 continuous period of service, no break in service, etc. Plan eligibility requirement is 3 months of service. Do I - A) Count 3 months of service from 1/15/18 since EE was never terminated and say employee completes requirement on 4/15 and eligible for plan entry on 5/1. (Even though he wasn't hired back until 5/7/18 - seems very strange to me, but that's what HR seems to be indicating) B) Count 3 months of actual days worked service (based on my information in previous posts) 1/15-2/15 (1month), 5/7-6/6 (1month), and wait until employee has completed 3rd month on 7/7 before considering eligible for plan entry.

Thank you, this is very helpful. HR has confirmed that the employee's benefits were still in place during the truly, "temporary layoff" and the employee's hire date will still be his original hire date for purposes of seniority, etc. The specific wording of the plan states the employee may enter the plan on the first day of the following month "... after his completion of three consecutive months of eligibility service...". Understanding it was a true, "temporary layoff", but needs 3 months of consecutive service, I am inclined to understand that as a) 1/15-2/15=1 month, b) 5/7-6/6=1 month, and 1 additional month is required. Is this correct?

Employee was hired on 1/15/18. Employer laid off employee on 2/15/18. Employee was rehired on 5/7/18. Plan has 90 day service requirement to be eligible for the plan. Contributions can start on 1st day of the month following the month when 90 day service requirement is reached. I've seen plenty of examples if the employee terminates/quits/is fired/etc. Is a layoff viewed in the same way? In most examples I see, it appears that time from 2/15/18 to 5/7/18 wouldn't even be considered a break in service. Is this correct? My thought is that as of 6/6/18, employee has completed 61 days of service (1/15-2/15 and 5/7-6/6). The time in between doesn't count and 29 days from now, on 7/7/18, the employee is eligible. Entering on the 1st day of the following month would mean employee is eligible to contribute and get employer match beginning on 8/1/18. Can anyone confirm or correct me? Thank you!