Labor: What to do when you get a letter from a union health or pension plan payroll auditor
Employers who participate in multi-employer health or pension plans are often surprised by the broad nature of the requests from payroll auditors.
April 08, 2013 at 07:02 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Employers who participate in multi-employer health or pension plans are often surprised by the broad nature of the requests from payroll auditors. Frequently, the request will suggest dates when the auditor plans to be on-site at the employer's place of business and will ask for payroll information for nonunion and other employees for whom the employer may not be required to make contributions to the health or pension plan. We often get calls from employers who would like to limit the information provided or to have the audit performed offsite.
Some employers try the route of stonewalling the auditor, suggesting that every possible date proposed by the auditor is inconvenient. Others try to insist that the audit can only be performed after normal business hours. Both of these approaches are mistakes. A payroll auditor generally has a right to perform the audit on-site at a time convenient to the auditor. If the dates proposed by the auditor would present a true hardship for the employer, the employer should advise the auditor of the conflict and work with the auditor to find a mutually convenient date for the audit. While the employer can choose a location at the worksite that is designed to be minimally invasive to conducting business, the employer should offer a reasonable schedule that includes normal business hours for the auditor to be present.
Many employers incorrectly believe that they can withhold data for executives and other nonunion employees because these individuals do not participate in the plan. But the trust agreements for most health and pension plans permit exactly that. Employers are well-advised to review the trust agreement and any participation agreement with the plan. Most commonly, the employer agreed to be bound by the terms of the trust agreement at the same time it signed the collective bargaining agreement.
The trust agreement usually provides the health or pension plan with direct authority to audit the employer's complete payroll records. In addition, the Supreme Court has found that the audit of all payroll records is a reasonable method for independently verifying the status of all individuals employed by an employer to insure that the right amount of benefit contributions are being paid. (Central States Pension Fund v. Central Transp.) This applies not only to executive salaries but also to nonunion employees, including those in right-to-work states where specific employees have elected not to join the union. Because union status is distinct from the right to benefits, if an employee is performing work covered by a collective bargaining agreement, the company must make contributions on behalf of the employee. Health and pension plans have a right to review the payroll records relating to all employees, including executives and nonunion employees, to determine whether the company properly made contributions.
Employers will be well-served to review the applicable language in their collective bargaining agreements to ensure they are making contributions for all work covered by the agreement. This may include work performed by temporary employees, work performed by nonunion employees and contributions relating to vacation or severance pay paid at the time of an employee's termination. Employers who self-audit on these issues are likely to avoid unpleasant surprises in the auditor's formal findings.
Employers who receive a letter from a plan auditor may want to consider the following suggestions:
- Review the trust agreement and any participation agreement for a broader understanding of the health or pension plan's audit authority
- Be cooperative with scheduling
- To the extent possible, prepare and review the required materials in advance of the audit
- Because many employers are concerned about releasing the salary information of their executives, the auditor may be willing to accept a total salary figure for a group of executives. In addition, many auditors are willing to sign confidentiality agreements in which they agree not to provide salary information about executives to the plan or the union.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMeta Hires Litigation Strategy Chief, Tapping King & Spalding Partner Who Was Senior DOJ Official in First Trump Term
What to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 16-48. It’s Comp Time Again: How To Crush Your Comp Memo
- 2'Religious Discrimination'?: 4th Circuit Revives Challenge to Employer Vaccine Mandate
- 3Fight Over Amicus-Funding Disclosure Surfaces in Google Play Appeal
- 4The Power of Student Prior Knowledge in Legal Education
- 5Chicago Cubs' IP Claim to Continue Against Wrigley View Rooftop, Judge Rules
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250