Back to Federal guidance
Pension service credit despite delinquent employer contributions
Summary In response to complaints filed in ten lawsuits, DOL said a pension plan could not deny service credit solely because a participating employer failed to pay required contributions. DOL also said it would not consider itself bound by an order in litigation to which the Secretary was not a party. The letter gave DOL's views on the described disputes without intervening in them.
Document
Federal opinion letter
Agency
U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)
Document number
P/OPINION 76-89
Date issued
August 31, 1976
Status
Unknown
EBSA's index does not mark withdrawn or superseded opinions; still posted on dol.gov as of 2026-10-26.
Status last verified October 26, 2026
Topics
Apply this to your situation
This page explains the general guidance. Ask about your specific situation and see what current federal labor law says, with citations.
About this page: The full text below is the official document from U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA). Ezel adds the plain-English summary and tracks the document's status. The official source linked on this page is authoritative for any reliance.
P/OPINION 76-89
202
203
204
August 31, 1976
Dear : (Re: 10 Civil Actions)
The Secretary of Labor has been served with copies of complaints filed on your behalf in the above-cited cases. While at the present time we do not propose to exercise our right to intervene in any of these cases pursuant to section 502 (h) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), we nonetheless wish to inform you of our views on two matters referred to in your complaints.
Paragraph 11 of each of your complaints states:
Unless the Pension Fund receives the contributions due it and can credit the same to the Defendant's employees, those employees will not be entitled to credit for hours worked which will result in their ineligibility for pension benefits upon retirement.
Without expressing any opinion on the law as it existed prior to the effective date of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), I would advise you that in our opinion the substance of the position expressed in that paragraph is not lawful under ERISA. ERISA sections 202, 203, and 204, 29 U.S.C.A. §§1052, 1053 and 1054, set minimum participation, vesting and benefit accrual standards which are binding on all covered employee pension plans. All three sections provide that the satisfaction of their requirements be based solely on each participant's years of service. A "year of service" is defined as the completion of 1,000 hours of service within a designated 12-month period. The definition of the term hour of service" was specifically reserved for determination by the Secretary of Labor through appropriate regulations.
On September 8, 1975, a definition of the term "hour of service was published in the Federal Register. Section 2530.200b-2(a) (1) states, "An hour of service is each hour for which an employee is directly or indirectly paid, or entitled to payment, by the employer for the performance of duties during the applicable computation period..." Although the Department of Labor will be making certain modifications in these regulations, none of the proposals under consideration would cause a change in our present position that credit must be given solely on the basis of service performed for a participating employer, regardless whether that employer is required to contribute for such service or has made or defaulted on his required contributions. Any plan term or Trustees resolution to the contrary is, in our judgment, unlawful and unenforceable.
Paragraph 4 of your Prayer for Relief in these cases requests:
That this Honorable Court rule and order that the Plaintiff, her principal or agents or other fiduciaries of the [Union] Pension Fund are immune and exempt from any and all criminal or civil actions or claims which may be brought against them by any person, including the Secretary of Labor, because of their inability to comply with the reporting and notice of requirements of law concerning participants and beneficiaries as they pertain to past or present employees of the Defendant for the periods of time wherein the Defendant has failed and refused to file Employer Remittance Reports on behalf of said employees.
Please be informed that the Secretary of Labor does not consider himself bound by orders which may be entered in litigation to which he is not a party.
I hope this information and the expression of these views will be of assistance to you.
Sincerely,
What does federal law require in your situation?
Ezel checks current federal labor law against your facts and answers with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace