coleboy Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 I have a plan whose eligibility is 6 months of service and age 21. Entry date is first of month following. An employee was hired 5/13/16. Left on 6/21/16 and came back on 10/6/16. The system is making him eligible as of 11/12/16 and entering on 12/1/16. He basically only worked 2 of the 6 months. FT Williams says this is correct. Any thoughts?
Belgarath Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Ah, the "service spanning" rules. It sounds like your plan is using the "elapsed time" method of crediting service for eligibility purposes. In that case, it sounds like FT Williams is correct. You can double-check your document to make sure.
RatherBeGolfing Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Do you use FTW documents? Is eligibility "6 months" or "6 consecutive months"? Here is the difference (from FTW VS document): Specified Months - Elapsed Time - Completes a specified number of months during which the employee completes at least one Hour of Service during the beginning and ending months. Specified Months - Consecutive - Completes a specified number of consecutive-months,during which employee completes at least one Hour of Service in each month.
coleboy Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 Yes, we use the FT Williams documents. What is selected if "6 consecutive months of continuous service(not to exceed 12- hours of service failsafe applies)
RatherBeGolfing Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Might be an issue with how it is coded in the compliance module. I would call FTW support and have them look at why it is bringing the participant in.
coleboy Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 I have contacted them again. They had previously cited the service spanning rules.Why have an election such as that if it could be "overruled" with the service spanning rules?
Tom Poje Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 without knowing the particular software, if may simply be the way the software language is written, more or less an unintended consequence of what happens if , for instance a plan is processed once a year as opposed to processing monthly, etc.
My 2 cents Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 If the plan uses the elapsed time method, aren't they required to recognize, as service, periods of severance of less than a year? Always check with your actuary first!
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now