IBEW LOCAL 332 PENSION PLAN A---------------FIDUCIARY ERROR

Error #7
The plan has no accounting for the participant benefit. Therefore they lacked the diligence required by their fiduciary role to protect participant.

One of the most important duties of our Pension Trustee’s is their fiduciary obligation. Congress has instructed trustees to act as if the plan Participant is the sole reason for their responsibilities. That is a high bar to set. The trustees are obligated to put the participants before even themselves in the performance of their duties. I personally think those instructions mean that participants (electricians) are more important than the other beneficiaries (spouses, etc.).
So why is it that the trustees failed to check on what my benefit should total? I don’t have the answer but it is obvious they forgot about the congressional instructions in the ERISA documents.
The records show a ("Brown") formula for wife #2 (although its wrong) and two formulas for wife number #1 (both also wrong) but no calculation for the electrician. So: why would they be so confident the spousal support was right without some kind of comparison with the SPD (Summary Plan Document) to make sure the electrician’s benefit was correct. The answer I’m sure is very complicated, the truth is only known to the trustees. They have been unwilling to share with the rest of us for about five years. That is an outrage coming from a organization that is supposed to be totally open and above suspicion.

Here are some facts:

A. Wife #2 has a “BROWN FORMULA” calculation in the file that is wrong and a waste of time for the plan to even work out. (She was paid by this formula until they sent her $25,000 in reimbursements.) She already had a QDRO in the file that specified her benefit. The Plan received it in 1999 and Qualified it as correct and acceptable.

B. In about 1999 I asked the Plan (Sarah Kraw) if the QDRO would affect my benefit. The answer was “NO” the electrician benefit would always be at least 50% of the total accrued pension.

C. Wife #1 has two calculations in the file. One shows her benefit when coordinated with wife #2s 1999 QDRO according to the Plan rules. The second calculation for wife #1 shows her benefit when figured using the Plan’s “BROWN FORMULA” which was later shot down by the California Superior Court of Appeals at my expense. (This one they used and it doubled her pension.)

D. Add my two spousal “BROWN FORMULA” calculations together and a very interesting fact emerges. The total of spousal support is less than it should be! (This is The Plan recommended standard operating procedure.) Therefore my benefit should rise.

E. The TRUSTEES refused to give me a hearing, as required, when I appealed their denial of restitution for my expenses. Check out the appeals process in the SPD, you should be able to get a hearing for a stubbed toe on the way to sign your papers because the policy is so very liberal.

Here are some speculations:
Could it be that the Plan was taking ERISA intent overboard and really meant to pay this electrician more than he deserved? Could it be that the 1999 QDRO opened up a bigger can of worms than any of us dreamed of. Could there be a bunch of divorced electricians who owe their spouses additional benefits? What about “FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY” of our trustees?

DON’T YOU THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN EXPLANATION FOR THIS B/S.

The rest of their errors will follow, I think there are twelve in total but each day a little more comes to light. Four of these people are our brothers who ought to “own up” to what goes on at those trustee meetings. $380,000,000 in their hands and we know squat about it. Like should our IBEW Plan really invest in Walmart, Haliburton, B.P. and who knows what else. Are those foreign country investments good for the US and labor? Are we feathering our beds but kissing off our principles?

Miscellaneous:
The Trustees have refused my request to look at minutes from the 1970s. It is not their policy to allow participants to see minutes and besides there is no Federal law that requires them to do so. They did not explain or site a reason for the policy and if there in no Federal restriction the fed's must not disapprove. An open organization should be cooperative just to prove they are above reproach.
Its also been a couple of months since I asked the trustees why the SAMPLE QDRO is the same as it was before the California Superior Court dissed it in the "GRAY V GRAY" case of 2005.
I think they had a meeting this Thursday so perhaps my answer is in the mail.
Do you think the business manager (trustee)will start his three part explanation announced at the November meeting concerning the pensions and the medical plans. The first segment was due in December.

Cowboy Wisdom
The easiest way to eat crow is while its still warm, the colder it gets the harder it is to swaller

Happy Trails.