Vesting Amendment

[Oh so SIMPLE]

A plan had a vesting schedule. Then it was amended to provide 100%, immediate vesting.

Does that vest 100% those former employees whose employment ended before the amendment's effective date, and were only partially vested under the former schedule?

The plan amendment does not specify in this regard.

[GMK]

The plan amendment does not specify in this regard.

but it could have. As you know, there are fewer worries if you consider the consequences before, rather than after, adopting the amendment. A stitch in time ... and all that.

Anyway, posts #10 and #11 here:

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=39718

give some guidance.

[QDROphile]

Consistent with my reputation I am going to grouse about the compentence of whoever was responsible for the amendment. Unless the intent was to vest every account, the amendment job was done incompetently. It is baby stuff, not rocket science, to ascertain the intended scope of the amendment, and to set forth that scope in the amendment in a way that leaves no doubt because yours is the very first question that gets asked about additional vesting. So when one does not see limitations in the amendment, one must presume that the vesting applies to the fullest extent, and that should be the outcome in any dispute. If that was not the intent, then someone should answer for the faulty amendment and the adverse consequences.

[Guest Sieve]

Read document carefully to see if it applies only to those who perform an hour of service on or after the effective date of the amendment. And, if that gives you no help, then the Plan probably gives the Administrator (usually the employer) the ability to interpret plan provisions, and that interpretation will be given deference by the courts if it is not arbitrary.