This post was guest authored by Stoel Rives employee benefits attorneys Bethany Bacci and Abbey Hendricks.
If you use union employees in your projects, you may contribute to a multiemployer pension plan—perhaps a few cents or few dollars per hour worked. However, some employers are surprised to learn they could be assessed with “withdrawal liability” that greatly exceeds their negotiated contribution rates in certain circumstances. Here’s what you need to know about a special exemption that may help avoid large payments to a multiemployer plan following the cessation of negotiated contribution obligations.
Under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), when an employer ceases to contribute to a multiemployer plan, that employer must generally pay “withdrawal liability.” The withdrawal liability rules under ERISA are designed to spread the unfunded pension liability across all participating employers—so that the employers that continue to contribute to the plan are not stuck footing the bill for those that previously exited. A withdrawal liability assessment can be very expensive; some of our clients have received initial assessments in the multimillions.
An employer might cease to contribute to a multiemployer plan for a variety of reasons: a project ended and union employees are no longer needed, operations in a local union’s jurisdiction ended, or an employer phased out its construction business to focus on other types of work. In the building and construction industry, frequent initiation and cessation of projects is the norm. Fortunately, Congress recognized that withdrawals by individual employers in the building and construction industry actually have a minimal effect on the contribution bases of multiemployer plans. This is because, once a project ends, employees often resume work with a different employer in the same area that continues to contribute to the plan. Due to this unique aspect of the building and construction industry, Congress provided for a special statutory exemption to complete withdrawal liability.
Let’s break down the statutory requirements for the special exemption:
- The employer must be a building and construction industry employer.
While there is no statutory definition of what it means to be a “building and construction industry” employer, courts and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) generally look to the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (also known as the Taft-Hartley Act) for guidance. As interpreted under the Taft-Hartley Act, the term refers to work performed at the site of a building or other structure in connection with the erection or alteration of the building or other structure. Other activities fall outside that scope. For example, an employer that merely manufactures or transports construction materials that are then installed by other contractors on a worksite is likely not considered a building and construction industry employer.
While it is permitted for a building and construction industry employer to have employees who perform work in other industries, “substantially all” of the employees for whom the employer is obligated to contribute to the multiemployer plan must perform work in the building and construction industry. The PBGC has not defined “substantially all” for this purpose; however, court cases have found 85% to be “substantially all.”
- The multiemployer plan must be a building and construction industry plan.
When a dispute arises over payment between a contractor and the agency overseeing a Federal government project, the contractor typically submits a request for a reasonable adjustment to the contract price. If the agency disagrees with the adjustment, the contractor may file a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act (“CDA”), which requires the contractor to certify to the contracting officer all claims submitted in excess of $100,000. In my latest article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I look at several considerations for a prime contractor in filing a claim when it is made on behalf of a subcontractor that is not willing to certify it. Read the full article 
Over the duration of a construction project, changes to its scope are inevitable, and the easiest way to address such changes, and their potential impacts on scheduling and contract price, is for the project owner and the contractor to mutually execute a change order prior to implementing a change. However, for a variety of reasons, disputes will arise over the need for a change order or a contractor will refuse to proceed with the changed work. In an article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I look at options the owner has under different circumstances – when the parties agree that certain work is a change but dispute the associated cost or time or if the parties cannot come to an agreement that something is a change. Read the full article 
Seattle and Bellevue’s strong real estate markets present a plethora of lucrative business opportunities for Canadian product manufacturers and suppliers. Because Washington-based developers and contractors are perhaps more litigious than their Canadian counterparts, Canadian-based product manufacturers and suppliers should consider a full spectrum of risk management and mitigation strategies before engaging in cross-border business activities. In her latest article for the Journal of Commerce of Canada, Loni L. Hinton provides a high-level checklist of tools for such manufacturers and suppliers to consider before embarking on their first project in Washington. Read the full article 
In the Pacific Northwest, Mother Nature can play a large part in whether or not a construction project will be completed on time and on budget. The importance to both owners and contractors of starting a construction project in order to take advantage of a window of good weather or other factors can make finalizing a contract secondary in importance to commencing work. In my latest article for the Daily Journal of Commerce, I look at five reasons why it is prudent to have an executed contract before work starts. Read the full article 
An international developer considering condominium projects in Washington should be abreast of the potential risks and liabilities arising from the Washington Condominium Act (“WCA”), which provides a broad array of warranty protections for condominium purchasers. The WCA has given rise to a significant increase in the number of construction defect lawsuits — a deterrent to both domestic and international developers in pursuing condominium projects, which has led many developers to construct apartments. In an article for the Journal of Commerce of Canada, Loni L. Hinton addresses several points that international developers should consider early in the development of a condominium project in Washington. Read the full article 