Elapsed Time - Eligibility - Rehire

Ft William doc, 12/31 PYE.  Eligibility is age 21, 3 months - elapsed time (not consecutive) and monthly entry.

Hire date: 2/25/24

Term date: 4/11/24

Rehire date: 8/22/24

When should this person become eligible ?

I vote for 8/22, since as of his rehire date three months had elapsed and his normally scheduled entry date of 6/1 had also.

I agree with Bri.  This looks like a classic example of the service spanning rules. 

https://www.asppa-net.org/news/2019/10/handling-rehired-employees/#:~:text=Elapsed Time Method%3A&text=Under the service spanning rule,or can use 365 days.

I would add if you study the base document, assuming it is some kind of prototype, it will most likely have a discussion of the Service Spanning Rules and how to handle rehires.  The guy who trained me in this business back in the early '90s wouldn't let you come into his office to ask a question unless the following two condition were true:

1) You had a copy of the plan document with you.

2)You could explain where you looked in the plan document you looked for the answer. 

He claimed, and is correct, 90%+ of all questions can be answered by reading the plan document.  He was willing to spend all the time you needed with you showing you how to find the answer in the document if you met those two conditions.  He threw you out of his office if you hadn't met one or both of those conditions.  My guess the document really does answer this question.  

Fully agree ESOP Guy, that's how I learned and now how I share that knowledge with others as well. You just tell someone an answer and they're asking the same question sometime later. You teach them how to arrive at the answer then chances are better they've learned and won't need to ask again.

Sorry.  Next time I will look at the BPD.  

2 hours ago, Keith Lowery said:

Sorry.  Next time I will look at the BPD.  

 

Don't take it as a slam on my part.  I was just pointing out how to find it.  Please don't be shy to ask questions here.  That wasn't the point of my reply.