Search form

Arbitrator Slashes Annual Withdrawal Liability Payments in Underfunded Multiemployer Pension Plan Dispute

By Robert R. Perry
  • June 8, 2016

Employers who cease contributing to an ERISA multiemployer pension plan are liable for their allocable share of any underfunding, or “withdrawal liability.”

For a variety of reasons, withdrawal liability has become both prevalent and significant. Indeed, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the federal agency tasked with the enforcement and regulation of the withdrawal liability rules) has estimated that approximately 10 percent of the 1,400 multiemployer pension plans face insolvency in the next 10 years to 15 years. Legislation to address this looming multiemployer pension plan crisis includes the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (“PPA”).

Pension Protection Act

Under the PPA, a multiemployer pension plan actuary must certify a plan’s funding status (ranging from red to green zones) annually. “Red zone” or critical status plans must adopt a PPA “Rehabilitation Plan” (essentially, a series of contribution schedules and other steps intended to allow the plan to emerge from critical status). This PPA Rehab Plan will result in contribution surcharges of 5 percent to 10 percent during the term of the collective bargaining agreement in effect when the plan enters critical status (referred to as “PPA Surcharges”). A default contribution schedule will be imposed unilaterally by the plan if a Rehab Plan-compliant contribution schedule is not adopted within 180 days after the current collective bargaining agreement expires (referred to as “Rehab Plan Increases”).

Withdrawal Liability Payment Rules

A multiemployer pension plan cannot demand that withdrawal liability be paid in a single lump sum. An employer generally must make annual payments determined by statutory formula and referred to as the “annual payment amount.” This annual payment amount is determined by multiplying the average “contribution base units” (the basis by which contributions are determined, such as hours worked) with the “highest contribution rate” (defined as the highest rate at which the employer had an “obligation to contribute” to the plan).

Absent a “mass withdrawal” or other catastrophic plan event, an employer generally is limited to 20 payments of the annual payment amount; any reduction in the annual payment amount thus can drastically reduce an employer’s withdrawal liability.

PPA Surcharges and Rehab Plan Increases Improperly Included

Jackson Lewis assisted an employer in prevailing in an arbitration that involved a withdrawal liability payment and PPA funding rules. The employer was able to save approximately $15 million in payments over the 20-year payment period.

The arbitration involved an employer who, prior to December 30, 2012, was obligated to contribute to the PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund on behalf of bargaining unit employees at two facilities. The facilities were closed, and the employer completely withdrew from the Fund as of December 30, 2012. The occurrence of the complete withdrawal, as well as the more than $46 million withdrawal liability asserted by the Fund, was not in dispute. The sole dispute was the Fund’s calculation of the employer’s annual withdrawal liability installment payment amount.

In determining the “highest contribution rate” of $1.9093 per hour, the Fund included:

  • the rate of $1.574 per hour, as set forth in a “participation agreement” between the Fund and the employer;
  • 10 percent PPA Surcharges imposed by the Fund during the term of the collective bargaining agreement in effect when the plan entered PPA critical status; and
  • non-bargained Rehab Plan Increases implemented under the Fund’s Rehab Plan following the expiration of the collective bargaining agreement.

The arbitrator found the Fund’s inclusion of the PPA Surcharges and the Rehab Plan Increases was improper and violated ERISA.

With respect to the PPA Surcharges, the arbitrator agreed with the holding of the federal appeals court in Philadelphia that the “highest contribution” rate for calculating the annual installments is the single highest contribution rate established under the employer’s relevant collective bargaining agreements, but the 10 percent surcharge applicable to plans in “critical status” is not included. Board of Trustees, IBT Local 863 Pension Fund v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, 802 F.3d 534 (3d Cir. 2015). As a result, the arbitrator held that the Fund’s inclusion of the PPA Surcharges in the highest contribution rate was improper and not authorized by the statutory scheme.

The Third Circuit did not decide whether the Rehab Plan Increases were improperly included in the highest contribution rate. This, therefore, was an issue of first impression before the arbitrator. The arbitrator found persuasive the employer’s argument that the plain and unambiguous language of the statute dictated that the Rehab Plan Increases were improperly included in the highest contribution rate by the Fund. The arbitrator found the statutory provisions describing the rate as the highest rate at which the employer had an “obligation to contribute” and defining an obligation to contribute as one arising either under one or more collective bargaining (or related) agreements or “as a result of a duty under applicable labor-management relations law.” He found the Rehab Plan Increases, implemented unilaterally by the Fund under the Rehab Plan, clearly did not arise under a collective bargaining (or related) agreement.

The arbitrator further accepted the employer’s argument that the Rehab Plan Increases did not arise as a result of a duty under applicable labor-management relations law since the provision under which it arose (Section 305(e)(1) of ERISA) does not require an employer and a union to alter their collective bargaining agreement; indeed, it does not even directly regulate the relationship between the employer and the union.

Accordingly, the arbitrator ruled he “cannot find [Section 305(e)(1) of ERISA] is an applicable labor-management relations law.” The arbitrator therefore concluded the Fund violated ERISA when it included the Rehab Plan Increases in the highest contribution rate.


An employer faced with a demand for withdrawal liability has an uphill battle. However, as demonstrated by this arbitration, it is possible to obtain substantial reductions in the amount of withdrawal liability payments asserted by a multiemployer pension plan.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are experienced in representing clients with multiemployer pension plans and withdrawal liability disputes. Please contact us with any questions.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

January 24, 2019

IRS Notice 2019-9 Provides Interim Guidance for Tax-Exempt Organizations Paying Excess Executive Compensation

January 24, 2019

The IRS has released a technical interim guidance on Section 4960, which was added to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, as part of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Very generally, Section 4960 imposes an excise tax in an amount equal to the corporate tax rate (currently, 21 percent) on that portion of a covered employee’s pay that... Read More

January 7, 2019

2019: The Year Ahead for Employers

January 7, 2019

Over the past year, state and local governments responded in a variety of ways to national policy, and the midterm elections painted a picture of what’s in store for employers in 2019 and beyond. Jackson Lewis’ annual report outlines upcoming issues, trends, legislation and regulations employers need to be aware of in the coming year... Read More

November 12, 2018

Puerto Rico Revises Form for Reporting Payments to Terminated Employees, Considers Credit History Ban

November 12, 2018

The Puerto Rico Department of the Treasury has announced changes to tax reporting for certain severance payments. As a result of the Labor Transformation and Flexibility Act (Act 4-2017), adopted in 2017, certain limited payments made by an employer to an employee due to separation of employment are classified as “exempt income” under... Read More

Related Practices