Match based on check date vs pay period end date

We are the TPA and we calculate the match for the client on a per pay basis.

Their pay period ending date was 5/22 but the pay date was 5/29. The next pay period ending date is 6/5 with a pay date of 6/12.

A participant met match eligibility on 5/24 and they are immediate entry. The client is thinking the person should not get a match until the 6/12 pay date because the pay on 5/29 is for time worked prior to her entry date.

Our system processes based on the pay date and as 5/29 is the first pay after her effective eligibility date, we are thinking the participant is ok to get match.

Any thoughts on if we should use the pay period end date versus the actual pay date?

Thanks!

What does the plan say?

Our VS document has the following to start the definition of Plan Compensation:

"Plan Compensation is Total Compensation, as modified under AA §5-3, which is actually paid to an Employee during the determination period (as defined in subsection (b) below)." 

In other words, you count compensation based on when it is paid (not when it is accrued).  Does your document have similar language?

If you are using the "few weeks" rule that counts amounts accrued but not paid, it will affect the answer.  But, I've never met anyone who uses that option. 

We work on pay dates, period.  Agree with your thinking.  As always, the plan document should control and it is unlikely that it has (convoluted) language carving out when wages are earned vs. paid.

4 hours ago, khr said:

We are the TPA and we calculate the match for the client on a per pay basis.

I 'think' what KevinC is suggesting is that your statement gets changed to 'We are the TPA and we calculate match for the client based on the language in the plan'.  That may solve this issue and many others 

Good Luck!

Agree with all of the above, but would note, khr, that if the plan language turns out to be ambiguous it may be possible for the employer under its authority (as stated in the plan document) to interpret the plan to adopt an interpretational rule that would be applied consistently.

42 minutes ago, Luke Bailey said:

it may be possible 

We’re going to start discussing ‘arbitrary and capricious’ if you keep this up 

21 hours ago, ETA Consulting LLC said:

We’re going to start discussing ‘arbitrary and capricious’ if you keep this up 

Right, ETA Consulting LLC, but just want to make sure that the most likely does not get in the way of the possible.