- 11 -
the NPF COLA is not an accrued benefit as to pre-1991 retirees
because the NPF COLA only became effective on January 1, 1991.
Petitioner concludes that the pre-1991 retirees could not have
accrued an NPF COLA while they were employees and, hence, that
the 1995 amendment eliminating that benefit as to them did not
violate section 411(d)(6). Respondent argues that the NPF COLA
is an accrued benefit as to pre-1991 retirees and that its
elimination violates the anticutback rule. Respondent contends
that the level of benefits provided by a plan is set by the
parties thereto in the plan’s terms and that nothing in ERISA
prevents a plan from being amended after a participant’s
retirement to provide, retroactively, more generous accrued
benefits to that participant.
We agree with petitioner. For the reasons stated below, we
believe that a COLA that is added to a plan after the retirement
of some of its participants, although made available to them, is
not an accrued benefit as to those participants under section
411(d)(6).
Congress enacted ERISA to ensure that “if a worker has been
promised a defined pension benefit upon retirement-–and if he has
fulfilled whatever conditions are required to obtain a vested
benefit–-he actually will receive it.” Nachman Corp. v. Pension
Ben. Guar. Corporation, 446 U.S. 359, 375 (1980). Congress
included in Title I of ERISA provisions for the “Protection of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011