29 U.S.C. § 1383
Complete withdrawal
For purposes of this part, the date of a complete withdrawal is the date of the cessation of the obligation to contribute or the cessation of covered operations.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 352
cases (75 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: Trustees of Iron Workers Local 473 Pension Trust v. Allied Products Corporation
Trustees of Iron Workers Local 473 Pension Trust v. Allied Products Corporation (1989)
“Reviewing the arbitrator’s decision de novo, the magistrate held that the arbitrator misinterpreted 29 U.S.C. § 1383 (a)(2) (withdrawal occurs when an employer permanently ceases all covered operations), and thus vacated the award.”
Peick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (1982)
“” 29 U.S.C.A. § 1383 (d)(1) (Supp.1981).”
Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union—New York Employees Pension Fund v. D & A Bus Co. (2017)
“5 (§ 2, ¶2), The Fund determined that- as of June 30, 2014, D & A “effected a ‘complete withdrawal’ from the Fund, as said term is defined in Section 4203 of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1383” and that as a result of this its withdrawal, D & A “incurred withdrawal liability to the Fund in…”
Laborers' Pension Fund v. W.R. Weis Co. (2016)
“” Request for Review (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 1383 (b)(2)). In the review letter, Weis' also explained that it had not employed any laborers since late 2009.”
Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (1986)
“, 29 U. S. C. §§ 1383 (b), (c) (applying special definitions for determining whether there has been a complete or partial withdrawal from a pension plan in the building and construction industry and in the entertainment industry); § 1384 (cessation or reduction of contribution…”
Laborers' Pension Fund v. W.R. Weis Company, Inc. (2018)
“See 29 U.S.C. § 1383 (b). The arbitrator agreed with the company, and a district judge confirmed the award but denied the Weis Company’s motion for attorney’s fees.”
Stevens Engineers & Constructors, Inc. v. Local 17 Iron Workers Pension Fund (2017)
“29 U.S.C. § 1383 (b). Under this arrangement, construction industry employers are not subject to withdrawal liability if they completely "withdraw from “work in the jurisdiction of the collective bargaining agreement of the type for which contributions were previously required.”
SUPERVALU, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Southwestern Pennsylvania & Western Maryland Area Teamsters & Employers Pens (2007)
“” 29 U.S.C. § 1383 (a). “[T]he date of complete withdrawal is the date of the cessation of the obligation to contribute or the cessation of covered operations.”
Central States v. U.S. Truck Co. Holdings (In Re U.S. Truck Co. Holdings) (2006)
“Truck asserted the “trucking industry” exception under 29 U.S.C. § 1383 (d) as an objection.”
Robbins v. Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. (1986)
“29 U.S.C. § 1383 (a). A partial withdrawal occurs if (1) there is a seventy percent contribution decline for a given plan year, 7 or (2) there is a partial cessation of the employer’s contribution obligation.”
H.C. Elliott, Inc. v. Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California (1988)
“The case calls for interpretation of 29 U.S.C. § 1383 (b)(2). ERISA provides that when an employer withdraws from obligations under a collective bargaining agreement requiring trust fund contributions, the employer must pay an assessment to the fund.”
Sofco Erectors, Inc. v. Trustees of the Ohio Operating Eng'rs Pension Fund (2021)
“…for complete and partial withdrawals from multiemployer pension plans. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1383 , 1385. But Congress designed special rules for the construction industry because its work often fluctuates and is done on a project-by-project basis. See id. <pre class="in”
— 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a) — 2 cases
In Re McFarlin's Inc. (1985)
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.