U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 18— EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT INCOME SECURITY PROGRAM › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— PROTECTION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFIT RIGHTS › Subtitle Subtitle A— General Provisions

29 U.S.C. § 1001a

Additional Congressional findings and declaration of policy

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Effects of multiemployer pension plansThe Congress finds that—(1) multiemployer pension plans have a substantial impact on interstate commerce and are affected with a national public interest;(2) multiemployer pension plans have accounted for a substantial portion of the increase in private pension plan coverage over the past three decades;(3) the continued well-being and security of millions of employees, retirees, and their dependents are directly affected by multiemployer pension plans; and(4)(A) withdrawals of contributing employers from a multiemployer pension plan frequently result in substantially increased funding obligations for employers who continue to contribute to the plan, adversely affecting the plan, its participants and beneficiaries, and labor-management relations, and(B) in a declining industry, the incidence of employer withdrawals is higher and the adverse effects described in subparagraph (A) are exacerbated.(b) Modification of multiemployer plan termination insurance provisions and replacement of programThe Congress further finds that—(1) it is desirable to modify the current multiemployer plan termination insurance provisions in order to increase the likelihood of protecting plan participants against benefit losses; and(2) it is desirable to replace the termination insurance program for multiemployer pension plans with an insolvency-based benefit protection program that will enhance the financial soundness of such plans, place primary emphasis on plan continuation, and contain program costs within reasonable limits.(c) PolicyIt is hereby declared to be the policy of this Act—(1) to foster and facilitate interstate commerce,(2) to alleviate certain problems which tend to discourage the maintenance and growth of multiemployer pension plans,(3) to provide reasonable protection for the interests of participants and beneficiaries of financially distressed multiemployer pension plans, and(4) to provide a financially self-sufficient program for the guarantee of employee benefits under multiemployer plans.(Pub. L. 96–364, § 3, Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1209.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This Act, referred to in subsec. (c), is Pub. L. 96–364, Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1208, known as the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 1980 Amendment note set out under section 1001 of this title and Tables.

Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, and not as part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 which comprises this chapter.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective Sept. 26, 1980, see section 1461(e)(1) of this title.

Study and Report Respecting Collective Bargaining for Contributions to, and Benefits From, Multiemployer Plans

Pub. L. 96–364, title IV, § 412(b), Sept. 26, 1980, 94 Stat. 1309, directed Secretary of Labor to study feasibility of requiring collective bargaining on both issues of contributions to, and benefits from, multiemployer plans, and submit a report on the study to Congress within 3 years of Sept. 26, 1980.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: United Food & Com. Workers Union-Emp. Pension Fund v. Rubber Assocs., Inc., 812 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United Food & Com. Workers Union-Emp. Pension Fund v. Rubber Assocs., Inc., 812 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c). In light of these objectives, ERISA provides four statutory methods for calculating withdrawal liability: (1) the presumptive method, (2) the modified presumptive method, (3) the rolling-5 method, and (4) the direct attribution method.”
Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Findlay Indus., Inc., 902 F.3d 597 (6th Cir. 2018). “See 29 U.S.C. § 1001a ; PBGC v. R.A. Gray & Co.”
Ralph Pompano v. Michael Schiavone & Sons, Inc., 680 F.2d 911 (2d Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “As the emphasis illustrates, and as the policy of Congress — “many employees with long years of employment are losing anticipated retirement benefits,” 29 U.S.C. § 1001a (1976 & Pub.L.No.96-364, § 3, 94 Stat.”
Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Advanced Lightweight Concrete Co., 484 U.S. 539 (1988). “1209 , 29 U. S. C. § 1001a (a)(4). 9 See MPPAA § 104, 94 Stat.”
Trs. of the Amalgamated Ins. Fund v. McFarlin's, Inc., 789 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1986). “” MPPAA § 3(a)(4), 29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a)(4). Congress was concerned that, unless a withdrawing employer assumed such a liability, the remaining employer participants would be unable to shoulder the increased burden caused by the withdrawal, which might lead to a collapse of the…”
Carpenters S. California Admin. Corp. v. El Capitan Dev. Co., 811 P.2d 296 (Cal. 1991). · cites it 2× “" (29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c)(3), (4).) The express preemption clause in ERISA is directed at state law generally, including both statutory and decisional law.”
In re Pulaski High. Express, Inc., 57 B.R. 502 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986). · cites it 2× “MPPAA § 3, 29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c) (1985). 5 It is defined as the amount of “unfunded vested benefits” allo-cable to the employer, subject to certain adjustments not relevant here.”
Louis F. Peick v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 724 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). “29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a)(4)(A) (Supp. V 1981).”
Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 513 U.S. 414 (1995). “MPPAA helped eliminate this problem by changing the strategic considerations. It transformed what was only a risk (that a withdrawing employer would have to pay a fair share of underfunding) into a certainty.”
Bd. of Trs. v. Eberhard Foods, Inc., 831 F.2d 1258 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “§ 1001a, expressly states that “withdrawals of contributing employers from a multiemployer pension plan frequently result in substantially increased funding obligations for employers who continue to contribute to the plan, adversely affecting the plan, its participants and…”
SUPERVALU, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Sw. Pennsylvania & W. Maryland Area Teamsters & Employers Pension Fund, 500 F.3d 334 (3d Cir. 2007). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a). It intended for the MPPAA to uniformly impose withdrawal liability and to “ ‘relieve the funding burden on remaining employers and to eliminate the incentive to pull out of a plan which would result if liability were imposed only on a mass withdrawal by…”
Shelter Framing Corp. v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 705 F.2d 1502 (9th Cir. 1983). “1208 (1980) (codified at 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001a et seq. (Supp. V 1981).”
Show all 63 citing cases →
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(4)(A): 2 cases
Bd. of Trs. v. Delaware Valley Sign Corp., 945 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Va. 2013).
Mar-Can Transp. Co. v. Loc. 854 Pension Fund, 167 F.4th 581 (2d Cir. 2026).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a): 2 cases
SUPERVALU, Inc. v. Bd. of Trs. of the Sw. Pennsylvania & W. Maryland Area Teamsters & Employers Pension Fund, 500 F.3d 334 (3d Cir. 2007). “” 29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a). It intended for the MPPAA to uniformly impose withdrawal liability and to “ ‘relieve the funding burden on remaining employers and to eliminate the incentive to pull out of a plan which would result if liability were imposed only on a mass withdrawal by…”
SUPERVALU Inc v. Bd Trs. SW PA, No. 06-3829 (3d Cir. Aug. 29, 2007).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a)(3): 2 cases
Clardy v. ATS, Inc. Emp. Welfare Benefit Plan, 921 F. Supp. 394 (N.D. Miss. 1996).
Pantry Pride, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Tri-State Pension Fund, 747 F.2d 169 (3d Cir. 1984).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a)(4): 9 cases
Trs. of the Amalgamated Ins. Fund v. McFarlin's, Inc., 789 F.2d 98 (2d Cir. 1986). “” MPPAA § 3(a)(4), 29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a)(4). Congress was concerned that, unless a withdrawing employer assumed such a liability, the remaining employer participants would be unable to shoulder the increased burden caused by the withdrawal, which might lead to a collapse of the…”
Milwaukee Brewery Workers' Pension Plan v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 513 U.S. 414 (1995). “MPPAA helped eliminate this problem by changing the strategic considerations. It transformed what was only a risk (that a withdrawing employer would have to pay a fair share of underfunding) into a certainty.”
Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, Inc., 762 F.2d 1137 (1st Cir. 1985).
Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, 762 F.2d 1124 (1st Cir. 1984).
In re Great Ne. Lumber & Millwork Corp., 64 B.R. 426 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1986).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a)(4)(A): 11 cases
Louis F. Peick v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 724 F.2d 1247 (7th Cir. 1983). “29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a)(4)(A) (Supp. V 1981).”
Bd. of Trs. of the IBT Local 863 Pension Fund v. C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., 802 F.3d 534 (3d Cir. 2015).
United Mine Workers of Am. 1974 Plan & Trust v. Lexington Coal Co. (In re HNRC Dissolution Co.), 396 B.R. 461 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2008).
Bd. of Trs. v. Eberhard Foods, Inc., 831 F.2d 1258 (6th Cir. 1987). “§ 1001a, expressly states that “withdrawals of contributing employers from a multiemployer pension plan frequently result in substantially increased funding obligations for employers who continue to contribute to the plan, adversely affecting the plan, its participants and…”
NYSA-ILA Pension Trust Fund & Plan v. Uiterwyk Lines (West Africa) Ltd. (In re Uiterwyk Corp.), 63 B.R. 264 (M.D. Fla. 1986).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(a)(4)(B): 2 cases
In re United Merchants & Mfrs., Inc., 166 B.R. 234 (Bankr. D. Del. 1994).
In re Pheoll Mfg. Co., 128 B.R. 1018 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1991).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(b)(2): 1 case
Holmes v. Pac. Mut. Life Ins., 706 F. Supp. 733 (C.D. Cal. 1989).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c): 9 cases
In re Pulaski High. Express, Inc., 57 B.R. 502 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1986). “MPPAA § 3, 29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c) (1985). 5 It is defined as the amount of “unfunded vested benefits” allo-cable to the employer, subject to certain adjustments not relevant here.”
United Food & Com. Workers Union-Emp. Pension Fund v. Rubber Assocs., Inc., 812 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2016). “29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c). In light of these objectives, ERISA provides four statutory methods for calculating withdrawal liability: (1) the presumptive method, (2) the modified presumptive method, (3) the rolling-5 method, and (4) the direct attribution method.”
Cent. States v. Alco Express Co., 522 F. Supp. 919 (E.D. Mich. 1981).
Cent. States v. Schilli Corp., 420 F.3d 663 (7th Cir. 2005).
Carpenters Amended & Restated Health Benefit Fund v. John W. Ryan Constr. Co., 767 F.2d 1170 (5th Cir. 1985).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c)(1): 1 case
Boon v. Miner (In re Boon), 108 B.R. 697 (W.D. Mo. 1989).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c)(2): 4 cases
Joseph P. Connors, Sr. v. P & M Coal Co., 801 F.2d 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
Caesars Entm't Corp. v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs Local 68 Pension Fund, 932 F.3d 91 (3d Cir. 2019).
Glover v. SDR Cartage Co., 681 F. Supp. 1293 (N.D. Ill. 1988).
Mar-Can Transp. Co. v. Loc. 854 Pension Fund, 167 F.4th 581 (2d Cir. 2026).
29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c)(3): 3 cases
Carpenters S. California Admin. Corp. v. El Capitan Dev. Co., 811 P.2d 296 (Cal. 1991). “" (29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c)(3), (4).) The express preemption clause in ERISA is directed at state law generally, including both statutory and decisional law.”
United Food & Com. Workers Union-Emp. Pension Fund v. Rubber Assocs., Inc., 812 F.3d 521 (6th Cir. 2016). “29 U.S.C. § 1001a(c). In light of these objectives, ERISA provides four statutory methods for calculating withdrawal liability: (1) the presumptive method, (2) the modified presumptive method, (3) the rolling-5 method, and (4) the direct attribution method.”
Bd. of Trs. v. Thompson Bldg. Materials, Inc., 749 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir. 1984).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.