On March 26, 2012, Blitman and King LLP will sponsor its 22nd Annual Labor & Employment Law Seminar. The main focus of this seminar will be on labor law related topics including concerted activity, public sector updates, private sector bargaining, construction industry developments and prevailing wage issues. The seminar will also include Employment Law and Employee Benefits Breakout Sessions. The Employee Benefits Breakout Session is aimed at union officers who also serve as Trustees of associated multiemployer pension, welfare and annuity plans. For more information on this seminar, please view the program below.

On Friday, May 11, 2012, Nathaniel G. Lambright will be presenting on Recent Developments at the NLRB. The program is being sponsored by Cornell University ILR School Labor and Employment Program, the NLRB Region 3, and the NYSBA Labor Employment Law Section. For more information on this program, please see the attached flyer.

Effective December 22, 2011, as a result of recent emergency legislation, the District of Columbia Office of Tax and Revenue will require that payers of distributions from retirement plans subject to federal withholding withhold D.C. income tax at the highest D.C. income tax rate in effect at the time of distribution, presently 8.95%. This distribution applies to the following:

(1) qualified employee benefit plans,

(2) qualified employee annuity plans,

(3) defined contribution plans,

(4) tax-sheltered annuity plans,

(5) individual retirement accounts,

(6) any combination of the plans and accounts listed above, or

(7) any similarly situated plan as defined by the Internal Revenue Code.

If you have any questions concerning this matter or any other issues involving employee benefit plans, please feel free to contact us.

On November 30, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board voted to approve a resolution by the Board’s Chairman, Mark G. Pearce, for new rules to expedite election cases. Many employers and conservative pressure groups reacted to the initial proposal and the recent vote with vitriol and calls for the one Republican member, Brian Hayes, to resign from his post. After Member Hayes threatened to resign, the Board’s Inspector General launched an investigation into whether Member Hayes was unduly influenced to issue his threat. As gridlock grinds governmental functions in DC to a near standstill, it is important to sweep the rhetoric aside and determine what Chairman Pearce’s resolution really means for future election cases.

The resolution focused on six procedural amendments, taken from a larger batch of proposed amendments that will: (1) limit the subjects that can be raised in a pre-election hearing to those related to the election, and (2) postpone any election-related appeals to the Board until after the election. Specifically, the amendments:

• Give the hearing officer authority to limit the scope of the hearing to issues concerning whether an election should be held. Currently, parties can raise issues that are irrelevant to the election, which wastes time and money;
• Give the hearing officer authority to allow post-hearing briefs. The Board reasoned that because many of the issues that arise during an election campaign have been addressed by existing Board precedent, there is little need for post-hearing briefs. Post-hearing briefs, however, provide more than just explanations of the law. They provide the hearing officer with the information necessary to decide a case;
• Consolidate two appeals (one concerning pre-election issues and the other concerning election conduct issues) into a single post-election procedure;
• Ensure the election will continue without delay while the appeal is pending;
• Narrow the circumstances for granting a special appeal to the Board; and
• Give the Board discretion to hear and decide appeals to the election process.

The Board has estimated that these amendments will affect roughly ten percent of the election cases it supervises. Those cases are generally the most contentious. By clearing the hurdles employers use to slow down the election process, thereby having time to influence the election, the rank-and-file members will be able to express their conscience by voting with less undue improper and sometimes illegal influence. These rules, however, must be finalized and approved by majority vote of the Board. This vote must be before the end of December when the Board loses its quorum.

On August 22, 2011, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury issued a proposed rule under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA” or the “Act”) that mandates group health plans and health insurance issuers to provide participants with a uniform summary of benefits and coverage (“Summary”). The effective date for the proposed rule is presently March 23, 2012. On November 17, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services posted a statement on its website advising that the proposed rule may be delayed.

It appears that the anticipated delay is in response to a number of comments by insurance issuers and employer groups which expressed concerns about the proposed rule, including concerns that there will not be enough time to implement the rule. The website posting included a statement indicating that once the final rule is issued it will include an effective date that gives insurance issuers and group health plans a sufficient amount of time to comply with the rule. It further indicated that insurers and group health plans will not be required to comply with the rule until the final regulations are issued.

If you have any questions concerning this matter or any other issues involving employee benefits, please feel free to contact us.

In a recent opinion, PERB reviewed the County of Chemung and the Chemung County Sheriff’s (“Joint Employer”) arguments that the Chemung County Sheriff’s Association’s (“Association”) proposed General Municipal Law Section 207-c procedure was non-mandatory, and therefore not subject to compulsory interest arbitration. PERB concluded that the proposal was a mandatory subject of bargaining because it did not require de novo review of the Joint Employer’s initial determination, but only provided that the hearing officer’s decision would be binding. This case has state-wide importance to police and firefighter unions that have or are seeking to negotiate General Municipal Law Section 207-a or 207-c procedures.

Four B&K attorneys have been selected to the 2011-2012 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. Selection to Best Lawyers is based on an exhaustive and rigorous peer-review survey comprising nearly 4 million confidential evaluations by the top attorneys in the country. The annual, advertisement-free publication has been described by The American Lawyer as “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.” Congratulations to the following B&K attorneys for their outstanding work in their designated field:

• Bernard T. King – Employment Law
• James R. LaVaute – Labor Law
• Donald D. Oliver – Labor Law
• Jules L. Smith – Employment Law

Additionally, Blitman & King LLP has received a first-tier ranking on the 2011-2012 “Best Law Firms” list for the firm’s work in both the Employment and Labor Law sectors.

On October 31, 2011, a representative of the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, announced that the DOL expects to release guidance in the near future concerning new registration and reporting requirements for multiple employer welfare arrangements (“MEWAs”). The guidance is also expected to address expanded enforcement authority for addressing potential fraud by MEWA operators.

If you have any questions concerning this matter or any other issues involving employee benefit plans, please feel free to contact us.

On October 24, 2011, the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, released its final rule on investment advice. This final rule implements a statutory prohibited transaction exemption under ERISA which permits financial advisors to receive fees from providers of investment products that are recommended to participants of employee benefit plans. The final rule becomes effective December 27, 2011.

The rule includes “safeguards and conditions” which are designed to prevent investment advisors from promoting investments that pay higher fees to the advisors. Specifically, investment advisors must be compensated on a “level-fee” basis for investments recommended to employee benefit plan participants, that is, the fees cannot very based on the chosen investments. Investment advice based on a computer model certified as unbiased will also qualify for the exemption. In addition, investment advisors must comply with certain recordkeeping requirements, provide full disclosure of its fees and conduct an annual audit of the investment advice arrangement.

If you have any questions concerning this matter or any other issues involving employee benefit plans, please feel free to contact us.

On October 20, 2011, the Internal Revenue Service announced cost of living adjustments affecting dollar limitations for pension plans and other retirement-related items for Tax Year 2012. In general, many of the pension plan limitations will change for 2012 because the increase in the cost-of-living index met the statutory thresholds that trigger their adjustment. However, other limitations will remain unchanged. Of note:

• The elective deferral contribution limit for employees who participate in 401(k), 403(b), or 457(b) plans has increased from $16,500 for 2011 to $17,000 for 2012.
• The catch-up contribution limit under those plans for those aged 50 and over remains unchanged at $5,500.
• The deduction for taxpayers making contributions to a traditional IRA is phased out for singles and heads of household who are active participants in an employer-sponsored retirement plan and have modified adjusted gross incomes (AGI) between $58,000 and $68,000, up from $56,000 and $66,000 in 2011. For married couples filing jointly, in which the spouse who makes the IRA contribution is an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, the income phase-out range is $92,000 to $112,000, up from $90,000 to $110,000 in 2011. For an IRA contributor who is not an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan and is married to someone who is an active participant, the deduction is phased out if the couple’s income is between $173,000 and $183,000, up from $169,000 and $179,000 in 2011.
• The AGI phase-out range for taxpayers making contributions to a Roth IRA is $173,000 to $183,000 for married couples filing jointly, up from $169,000 to $179,000 in 2011. For singles and heads of household, the income phase-out range is $110,000 to $125,000, up from $107,000 to $122,000 in 2011. For a married individual filing a separate return who is an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, the phase-out range remains $0 to $10,000.
• The AGI limit for the saver’s credit (also known as the retirement savings contributions credit) for low-and-moderate-income workers is $57,500 for married couples filing jointly, up from $56,500 in 2011; $43,125 for heads of household, up from $42,375 in 2011; and $28,750 for married individuals filing separately and for singles, up from $28,250 in 2011.

If you have any questions concerning these limitations or any other issues involving employee benefits, please feel free to contact us.