Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Years ago I came across a line of cases suggesting that a multiemployer plan could not enforce the contribution obligation against an owner who chose to work at the trade.

This issue has presented itself again and I am unable to locate the case citations. Of course the CBA is silent on this issue.

Preliminary research shows a few recent decisions that allowed plans to recover from working owners. They focus on the issue of whether an owner can be considered an "employee" under ERISA. (My recollection is that the Supreme Court indicated a person can be both an owner and employee).

Has anyone researched this issue lately? If so I would appreciate a summary of your findings and any case citations. Thanks in advance.

  • 1 month later...
Guest jmc51
Posted

The Supreme Court case you may be referring to is Yates v. Hendon. I work at the firm that obtained the advisory opinion cited by KJohnson, we come across this issue often. Hope this helps.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use