In Bulk Transp. v. Teamsters Union No. 142 Pension Fund, No. 23-1563, 2024 WL 1230236 (7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2024), the Seventh Circuit held that the contributions used to calculate an employer’s withdrawal liability may include only the contributions the employer was required to remit pursuant to the terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).  The employer remitted two sets of contributions to the plan: (i) for steel mill work pursuant to the terms of the CBA, and (ii) for hauling work that was not covered by the terms of the CBA, but that the employer nevertheless remitted to the plan to head off labor strife.  After the hauling work ended, the plan assessed the employer withdrawal liability.  The employer disputed the calculation, arguing that the contributions associated with the hauling work should not have been included in the calculation because those contributions were not required by the CBA or any other written agreement.  The arbitrator and the district court disagreed, holding that by remitting contributions for the hauling work, the employer by its conduct effectively amended the CBA to require contributions for the hauling work, and therefore, those contributions were properly included in calculating the employer’s withdrawal liability.  The Seventh Circuit reversed, explaining that while an employer may by its conduct become bound by a labor agreement and even amend the agreement’s provisions on wages and the terms and conditions of employment, 29 U.S.C. § 1145 requires that any changes regarding the obligation to contribute to an ERISA plan must be in writing.  Because it was undisputed that the CBA could not be construed to cover the hauling work, the court held that contributions relating to that work should not be included in the withdrawal liability calculation. 

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Daniel Wesson Daniel Wesson

Dan is an associate in Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation and focuses on ERISA Litigation. His litigation practice ranges from complex class actions to individual benefit claims concerning all types of plans, including 401(k) and 403(b) plans, defined benefit plans and health and…

Dan is an associate in Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation and focuses on ERISA Litigation. His litigation practice ranges from complex class actions to individual benefit claims concerning all types of plans, including 401(k) and 403(b) plans, defined benefit plans and health and welfare plans.  Dan represents large corporations, individuals, multiemployer pension plans, insurers, benefit plan committees and independent fiduciaries.  Dan also advises clients on plan administration, benefits restructuring, risk assessment and government investigations.

Dan has coauthored multiple articles in the Benefits Law Journal and is a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog.

Dan earned his B.A. from Northeastern University and his J.D. from Georgetown University.  He was a member of the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy.  During his first summer at law school and the following semester, he served in the Division of Plan Benefits Security at the United States Department of Labor in Washington D.C., where he was a Gary S. Tell ERISA Litigation Fellow.

Photo of Neil V. Shah Neil V. Shah

Neil V. Shah is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where he focuses on ERISA litigation.

Neil represents plan sponsors, trustees, and other fiduciaries in ERISA class actions for…

Neil V. Shah is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group, where he focuses on ERISA litigation.

Neil represents plan sponsors, trustees, and other fiduciaries in ERISA class actions for breach of fiduciary duty arising out of investment losses and prohibited transactions, as well as Department of Labor and other governmental and internal investigations.  Neil also counsels both employers and multiemployer funds regarding the assessment and collection of delinquent contributions and withdrawal liability.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Neil was an associate at a large regional firm, where he litigated individual and class actions involving challenges to insurer claims adjudication procedures under ERISA, fraud recoveries against healthcare providers, and claims for benefits.

Neil has authored several articles, including those published in the New Jersey Law Journal and Bloomberg National Affairs. He is also a frequent contributor to Proskauer’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog.