The Just Born Case: Responding to the Multiemployer Pension Crisis

by McGuireWoods LLP
Contact

In Bakery and Confectionery Union Fund v. Just Born II, Inc., the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 26, 2018, affirmed the district court’s judgment requiring Just Born to pay delinquent contributions into the Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund (the Pension Fund), as well as interest, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

The 4th Circuit ruled that the Pension Fund can require Just Born to continue making contributions for new bargaining-unit employees following the expiration of its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Bakery, Confectionery and Tobacco Workers International Union, Local Union 6 (Local 6), and contrary to the terms of its new agreement. After bargaining to impasse, Just Born implemented its last, best offer to Local 6, under which contributions would be made to the financially troubled Pension Fund for existing employees, but not for new hires. In holding that the Pension Fund’s rehabilitation plan required Just Born to continue contributions for all bargaining-unit employees, regardless of its agreement with Local 6, the 4th Circuit reasoned that this result was required by amendments the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA) made to the Pension Protection Act (PPA) and ERISA.

The Just Born case is much more than a delinquent contribution collection case. It deals with the interaction of the MPRA, the National Labor Relations Act, the Taft-Hartley Act and the PPA —implications of which the court barely discussed. The case also illustrates tactics the Pension Fund and Just Born used to mitigate the looming insolvency crisis facing many badly underfunded multiemployer pension plans (MEPPs) and the employers participating in those MEPPs.

MEPP Crisis

For the Pension Fund and many other badly underfunded MEPPs — and the participating employers and employees who count on those pensions — the near future looks bleak. For these funds (less than 10 percent of approximately 1,400 MEPPs nationally), insolvency is forecasted within the next five to 20 years. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) provides limited insurance to backstop these benefits, but the PBGC’s Multiemployer Pension Program could itself be insolvent in five years. For hundreds of thousands of employees and retirees, there could be no funds available to pay for the pension promises made by these MEPPs.

The problem MEPPs are characterized by large numbers of retirees and terminated vested participants, supported by shrinking total contributions paid for relatively few active employees and withdrawal liability payments from employers who have left the MEPPs. The trucking and furniture industries, for example, have seen contributing employers file for bankruptcy, close shop, or otherwise cease operations and withdraw from industry MEPPs. One survey found that 87 percent of beneficiaries in critical and declining plans were inactive — either retired or not working but entitled to a vested benefit in the future. MEPPs must pay benefits to “orphaned” participants left behind when their employers go out of business, using the contributions of employers who remain in the MEPPs.

The Pension Fund in the Just Born case has suffered a similar history of chronic underfunding and loss of employer contributions, including the 2012 Hostess bankruptcy, in which $1 billion in pension liability was discharged with respect to the Pension Fund, where Hostess represented 13 percent of the Pension Fund’s contributions.

Pension Protection Act and Multiemployer Pension Reform Act

The PPA amended ERISA to require more specific disclosure of the MEPP’s funded status and allow trustees of critical-status plans to reduce or eliminate certain benefits, including lump sums, post-retirement benefits, subsidized optional forms of payment, early retirement benefits, and benefit increases adopted less than 60 months before the plan entered critical status.  Notably, the PPA established three categories of MEPPs: (i) “Green Zone” for healthy, (ii) “Yellow Zone” for endangered, and (iii) “Red Zone” for critical plans. These categories are based upon the funding ratio of plan assets to plan liabilities. Generally, Red Zone plans are less than 65 percent funded.

Each year, the MEPP’s actuary must certify the zone status within 90 days of the start of the plan year. If the MEPP is certified in the Red Zone, it must establish a funding rehabilitation plan (Rehab Plan), and provide the parties to each CBA one or more schedules of employer contribution increases and/or benefit reductions that, over time, will improve the funding status of the MEPP and allow it to emerge from critical status or forestall insolvency. Similar rules apply for plans certified in the Yellow Zone. The bargaining parties can wait until negotiations on a new CBA to agree on a schedule, or they can re-open their current agreement to incorporate a schedule.

The PPA has helped many MEPPs, but some MEPPs still face insolvency. In 2014, Congress passed the MPRA, which enacted certain technical corrections to the PPA rules, imposed higher PBGC premiums and, among other reforms, allowed poorly funded MEPPs to reduce accrued benefits (including benefits in pay status) with the consent of the Treasury Department and a vote of all MEPP participants and beneficiaries. In May 2016, Treasury denied the first MPRA application, filed by Central States, the largest MEPP in the country and one of the worst-funded. Treasury’s action doomed Central States and assured the insolvency of PBGC’s Multiemployer Pension Program, absent a federal bailout. Central States had supported the MPRA, which was designed in large part to save Central States.

The MPRA also amended a PPA rule addressing what would happen regarding a Rehab Plan contribution schedule in subsequent bargaining over a CBA that expired. Specifically, MPRA revised an ERISA provision added by the PPA to provide for a “Subsequent Contribution Schedule,” 29 U.S.C. § 1085(e)(3)(C)(ii)-(iii) (the MPRA Provision).  Under the MPRA Provision, if “a collective bargaining agreement providing for contributions under a multiemployer plan in accordance with a schedule provided by the plan sponsor pursuant to a rehabilitation plan” expires while the plan is still in critical status, and “the bargaining parties with respect to such agreement fail to adopt a contribution schedule with terms consistent with the updated rehabilitation plan and a schedule from the plan sponsor,” then “the contribution schedule applicable under the expired collective bargaining agreement, as updated and in effect on the date the collective bargaining agreement expires, shall be implemented by the plan sponsor” effective 180 days after the CBA expired.

The issue in Just Born was whether the MPRA Provision allowed the Pension Fund to require Just Born to continue making contributions for new bargaining-unit employees following expiration of its CBA with Local 6, despite its new agreement with Local 6 providing otherwise.

The Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund

The Pension Fund is a “critical and declining” MEPP that has promised retirement benefits to employees working in the baking and candy industries under CBAs between numerous employers and local unions. The Pension Fund is projected to be insolvent in the 2029 plan year.

Under the PPA, the Pension Fund’s critical status required the trustees to “adopt and implement a rehabilitation plan” under 29 U.S.C. §1085(a)(2)(A) with revised schedules of reduced benefits and increased contributions. The Pension Fund’s Rehab Plan included a revised contribution schedule requiring 5 percent annual increases in the amount employers “contribute for every hour or portion of an hour, beginning on the first day of employment, that a person ... works in a job classification that is covered by the” CBA.

Just Born’s Bargaining Tactic: No Contributions for New Employees

Just Born was a participating employer in the Pension Fund pursuant to a series of CBAs between itself and Local 6, the most recent of which, as extended, ran from March 1, 2012, through April 30, 2015. The CBA provided for Just Born to make contributions to the Pension Fund “for each employee working in job classifications covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Employer and the Union.”

In negotiations for a new CBA, Just Born proposed that any new agreement require that Just Born make contributions only on behalf of current employees and provide a 401(k) defined-contribution plan for newly hired employees excluded from the Pension Fund. Local 6 rejected this proposal and filed an unfair-labor-practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), alleging that Just Born’s proposal constituted bad-faith bargaining. After an investigation, the NLRB dismissed the allegations, and Local 6 did not appeal.

In November 2015, after months of unsuccessful negotiations, Just Born declared a bargaining impasse and implemented its best and final offer: continuing to contribute to the Pension Fund for existing employees already participating in the Pension Fund, but making no contributions to the Pension Fund on behalf of newly hired employees, who were unlikely to receive significant benefits from the Pension Fund if the Pension Fund becomes insolvent and the PBGC safety net is lost.

MPRA Provision Requires Contributions for All Employees

The Pension Fund implemented the contribution schedule as in effect on the date of the CBA’s expiration and sued Just Born for delinquent contributions owed for new employees, relying on the MPRA Provision and the requirement in the contribution schedule that employers make contributions to the Pension Fund on behalf of “all” employees “working in job classifications covered by” the CBA.

Under its interpretation of the MPRA Provision, the 4th Circuit found that Just Born was a “bargaining party” under the expired CBA and that the remaining conditions of the provision were satisfied:

[T]he CBA expired while the Pension Fund was in critical status and operating under a rehabilitation plan schedule, and Just Born and the Union — the bargaining parties to the expired CBA — “fail[ed] to adopt a contribution schedule” with terms consistent with an updated rehabilitation plan. With these preconditions met, the Provision requires the Pension Fund to implement the contribution schedule “as updated and in effect on the date the [CBA] expire[d].” See § 1085(e)(3)(C)(ii)(II). Thus, the plain language of the Provision requires Just Born to continue to contribute according to the revised schedule that applied at the time the CBA expired, and that schedule, in turn, requires contribution for all employees: existing and new hires.

Implications of Just Born

The 4th Circuit agrees with the Pension Fund that 29 U.S.C. § 1085(e)(3)(C)(ii) gives unfunded MEPPs a new weapon in responding to employer attempts to pare down their contribution obligations to the MEPP. Before the MPRA, MEPPs could reject CBAs (and force a complete withdrawal on the employer) if the MEPP considered the CBA unacceptable, but could not impose a different contribution obligation on the employer. In the 4th Circuit’s view, the MPRA Provision obligates the employer to comply with the MEPP’s Rehab Plan if the employer wants to continue participating in the MEPP.

Under the 4th Circuit interpretation of the MPRA Provision, what terms can a Rehab Plan properly impose upon employers without the employer’s consent?  Rehab Plans are adopted unilaterally by the MEPP trustees. The 4th Circuit assumed without discussion that the “contribution schedule” that Just Born had to follow included not just the amount of the contribution, but also the employees for whom the contributions must be made. That conclusion significantly diminishes the authority of the employer and union to negotiate the terms and conditions of employment. Likewise, Section 302(c)(5) of the Taft-Hartley Act, which the 4th Circuit does not mention, requires that an employer’s contributions to the MEPP be made pursuant to a “written agreement with the employer” providing the detailed basis on which such payments are to be made. Just Born implicitly erodes this Taft-Hartley provision. 

What’s in the Future?

Employers participating in badly underfunded MEPPs have experienced increased contribution rates and higher PBGC premiums, but insolvency still looms, with the danger that employees will never receive the full benefits promised by these MEPPs. Congress has now convened a Joint Select Committee on Solvency of Multiemployer Pension Plans to recommend a solution for the MEPP crisis by year’s end. A package of reforms will likely be proposed, but expect to see some type of taxpayer bailout of MEPPs and/or the PBGC.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© McGuireWoods LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

McGuireWoods LLP
Contact
more
less

McGuireWoods LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.