Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans




Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB)
Pension Plans

Updated May 22, 2020
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R45187




Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Summary
Multiemployer defined benefit (DB) pension plans are private-sector pensions sponsored by more
than one employer and maintained as part of a collective bargaining agreement. In DB pension
plans, participants receive a monthly benefit in retirement that is based on a formula. In
multiemployer DB pensions, the formula typically multiplies a dollar amount by the number of
years of service the employee has worked for any of the employers that participate in the DB
plan.
Some DB pension plans have sufficient resources from which to pay their promised benefits. But,
as a result of a variety of factors—such as changes in the unionized workforce and the 2007 to
2009 recession—many multiemployer DB plans are likely to become insolvent over the next 20
years and run out of funds from which to pay benefits owed to participants.
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)—a federally chartered corporation—insures
the benefits of participants in private-sector DB pension plans up to a statutory maximum.
Although PBGC is projected to have sufficient resources to provide financial assistance to
smaller multiemployer DB plans through 2025, the projected insolvency of large multiemployer
DB pension plans would likely result in a substantial strain on PBGC’s multiemployer insurance
program. In its FY2018 Projections Report, PBGC indicated that the multiemployer insurance
program is highly likely to become insolvent by 2025. In the absence of increased financial
resources for PBGC, participants in insolvent multiemployer DB pension plans would likely see
sharp reductions in their pension benefits.
This report’s data are from the public use Form 5500 data for the 2017 plan year (the most recent
year for which complete information is available). Nearly all private-sector pension plans
(including multiemployer DB plans) are required to file Form 5500 with the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS), the Department of Labor (DOL), and PBGC. The Form 5500 information includes
breakdowns on the number of plan participants, financial information about the plan, and details
of companies providing services to the plan. Multiemployer DB plans specifically are required to
report their financial condition as being in one of several categories (referred to as the plan’s
“zone status”).
The insolvencies of these plans could affect the employers that contribute to multiemployer plans.
For example, an employer in a plan that becomes insolvent might have to recognize the total
amount of its future obligations to the plan on its financial statements, which could affect the
employer’s access to credit and, potentially, its participation in other multiemployer plans.
This report provides 2017 plan year data on multiemployer DB plans categorized in several ways.
First, the report categorizes the data based on plans’ zone status. Next, it provides a year-by-year
breakdown of the number of plans that are expected to become insolvent and the number of
participants in those plans. It then provides information on the 25 largest multiemployer DB plans
(each plan has at least 75,000 participants). Finally, the report provides data on those employers
whose plans indicate they contributed more than 5% of the plans’ total contributions (referred to
in this report as “5% contributors”). It lists (1) the 5% contributors whose total contributions to
multiemployer plans were at least $25 million and (2) the 5% contributors in the 12 largest
multiemployer plans (as ranked by total contributions to the plan) that are in the “critical and
declining”—the most poorly funded—zone status.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 4 link to page 5 link to page 7 link to page 11 link to page 13 link to page 19 link to page 22 link to page 8 link to page 10 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 20 link to page 20 link to page 23 link to page 23 link to page 26 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Contents
Background on Multiemployer Pension Plans ................................................................................ 1
Multiemployer Pension Plan Data ................................................................................................... 2
Zone Status of Multiemployer Plans in 2017 ............................................................................ 4
Multiemployer Plan Insolvencies by Year ................................................................................. 8
The 25 Largest Multiemployer Plans ...................................................................................... 10
5% Contributors ............................................................................................................................ 16
5% Contributors in the Largest Critical and Declining Multiemployer DB Plans ........................ 19

Tables
Table 1. Multiemployer Funding Status Categories ........................................................................ 5
Table 2. Zone Status of Multiemployer Defined Benefit Plans in 2017 .......................................... 7
Table 3. Expected Year of Insolvency of Multiemployer Defined Benefit Plans in Critical
and Declining Status ..................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4. The 25 Largest Multiemployer Defined Benefit Pension Plans in the 2017 Plan
Year ............................................................................................................................................. 11
Table 5. Employers That Contributed at Least $25 Million as 5% Contributors in the 2017
Plan Year..................................................................................................................................... 17
Table 6. Contributions and 5% Employers in the 12 Largest Critical and Declining
Multiemployer DB Pension Plans, Ranked by Total Contributions in 2017 Plan Year .............. 20

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 23

Congressional Research Service

Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Background on Multiemployer Pension Plans
In general, pension plans are a form of deferred compensation: workers do not receive income
when it is earned but rather receive that income in the future. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC)
provides tax advantages to certain deferred compensation schemes: rather than including such
compensation in taxable income when it is earned, the compensation is included in taxable
income when it is received by the individual (presumably, in retirement).
Pension plans may be classified according to whether they are (1) defined benefit (DB) or defined
contribution (DC) plans and (2) sponsored by one or more than one employer. In DB plans,
participants receive regular monthly benefit payments in retirement (which some refer to as a
“traditional” pension).1 In DC plans, of which the 401(k) plan is the most common, participants
have individual accounts that can provide a source of income in retirement. The plans that are the
subject of this report are DB plans.
Pension plans are also classified by whether they are sponsored by one employer (single-
employer plans) or by more than one employer (multiemployer and multiple employer plans).
Multiemployer pension plans are sponsored by more than one employer (often, though not
required to be, in the same industry) and maintained as part of a collective bargaining agreement.
Multiple employer plans are sponsored by more than one employer but are not maintained as part
of collective bargaining agreements.2 The plans that are the subject of this report are
multiemployer plans.
Multiemployer DB pensions are of current concern to Congress because approximately 10% to
15% of participants are in plans that may become insolvent.3 When a multiemployer pension plan
becomes insolvent, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) provides financial
assistance to the plan so the plan can continue to pay benefits up to the PBGC guaranteed
amount.4 Plans that receive PBGC financial assistance must reduce benefits to a statutory
maximum benefit, currently equal to $12,870 per year for an individual with 30 years of service
in the plan.5 Neither the guarantee amount nor benefits are adjusted for changes in the cost of
living.
Using 2013 data (the most recent year for which this data point is available), PBGC estimated
that 79% of participants in multiemployer plans that were receiving financial assistance receive
their full benefit (i.e., their benefits were below the PBGC maximum guarantee).6 Among

1 In some defined benefit (DB) plans, participants have the option to receive an actuarially equivalent lump-sum
payment at retirement in lieu of the annuity. Typically, an annuity is a monthly payment for life.
2 Multiple employer pension plans are not common. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) indicated that
about 0.7% of private-sector pension plans were multiple employer pension plans. See U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Federal Agencies Should Collect Data and Coordinate Oversight of Multiple Employer Plans,
GAO-12-665, September 13, 2012, p. 10, at http://www.gao.gov/assets/650/648285.pdf.
3 For additional background, see CRS Report R43305, Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans: A Primer.
4 For more about PBGC, see CRS Report 95-118, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC): A Primer, or CRS
In Focus IF10492, An Overview of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).
5 The guarantee is more than $12,870 per year for an individual with more than 30 years of service in the plan and less
than $12,870 per year for an individual with less than 30 years of service in the plan. More information is available at
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Multiemployer Benefit Guarantees, at https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/
multiemployer/multiemployer-benefit-guarantees.
6 See Pension Benefit Guaranty Study, PBGC’s Multiemployer Guarantee, March 2015, at https://www.pbgc.gov/
documents/2015-ME-Guarantee-Study-Final.pdf. The study considered only reductions in benefits because of the
maximum guarantee and did not consider the effect of the likely insolvency of PBGC.
Congressional Research Service

1

Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

participants in plans that were terminated and likely to need financial assistance in the future,
49% of participants have a benefit below the PBGC maximum guarantee, and 51% have a benefit
larger than the PBGC maximum guarantee. Among ongoing plans (neither receiving PBGC
financial assistance nor terminated and expected to receive financial assistance), the average
benefit is almost twice as large as the average benefit in terminated plans. This suggests that a
larger percentage of participants in plans that receive PBGC financial assistance in the future are
likely to see benefit reductions as a result of the PBGC maximum guarantee level.7
PBGC estimates that in the future it will not have sufficient resources from which to provide
financial assistance for insolvent plans to pay benefits at the PBGC guarantee level. Most
participants would receive less than $2,000 per year because PBGC would be able to provide
annual financial assistance equal only to its annual premium revenue, which was $310 million in
FY2019.8 There is no obligation on the part of the federal government to provide financial
assistance to PBGC, although some policymakers have stated that some form of federal assistance
to PBGC might be necessary to ensure that participants’ benefits are not reduced to a fraction of
their promised benefits.9
Multiemployer Pension Plan Data
CRS analyzed public-use Form 5500 data from the Department of Labor (DOL) for the 2017 plan
year, the most recent year for which complete data are available.10 Most private-sector pension
plans are required to annually report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), DOL, and PBGC
information about the plan, such as the number of participants, financial information, and the
companies that provide services to the plan. In addition to Form 5500, pension plans are generally
required to file additional information in specific schedules. For example, most multiemployer
DB plans are required to file Schedule MB, which contains information specific to multiemployer

7 The average monthly benefit in terminated plans that are likely to receive PBGC financial assistance was $383.33; in
plans that were projected to become insolvent within 10 years was $546.17; and in remaining, ongoing plans was
$1,010.44. See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC’s Multiemployer Guarantee, March 2015, Figure 4, at
https://www.pbgc.gov/documents/2015-ME-Guarantee-Study-Final.pdf.
8 See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, “PBGC Projections: Multiemployer Program Likely Insolvent by the End
of 2025; Single-Employer Program Likely to Eliminate Deficit by 2022,” press release, August 3, 2017, at
https://www.pbgc.gov/news/press/releases/pr17-04. Additionally, the National Coordinating Committee for
Multiemployer Plans (NCCMP) estimated that participants in 12 plans that applied for benefit reductions under MPRA
would see a 53% reduction in benefits as a result of the PBGC maximum guarantee were these plans to become
insolvent and receive PBGC financial assistance. The presentation did not indicate what percentage of participants in
those plans would see benefit reductions. See National Coordinating Committee on Multiemployer Pensions,
Multiemployer Pension Facts and the National Economic Impact, January 5, 2018, at http://nccmp.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Multiemployer-Pension-Facts-and-the-National-Economic-Impact-Jan-5-2018.pdf. For premium
revenue, see PBGC, Annual Report Fiscal Year 2019, p. 26, https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/pbgc-fy-2019-
annual-report.pdf.
9 See 29 U.S.C. §1302 (g)(2), which states that the “United States is not liable for any obligation or liability incurred by
the corporation.” For example, S. 2147, the Butch Lewis Act of 2017; H.R. 4444, the Rehabilitation for Multiemployer
Pensions Act; and S. 1076/H.R. 2412, the Keep Our Pension Promises Act, would provide U.S. Treasury funds to
PBGC if it had insufficient resources from which to provide financial assistance to plans as required by the bills.
10 A plan year is “a 12-month period designated by a retirement plan for calculating vesting and eligibility, among other
things. The plan year can be the calendar year or an alternative period, for example, July 1 to June 30.” See
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/definitions. Data are available at https://www.dol.gov/
agencies/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/public-disclosure/foia/form-5500-datasets.
Congressional Research Service

2

Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

DB plans, such as the zone status of the plan (described below). Each pension plan’s Form 5500
and required schedules are available by search on DOL’s website.11
The public-use Form 5500 data included 1,355 plans that indicated they were multiemployer DB
pension plans for the 2017 plan year.12 These plans had 11.0 million participants.13
The analyzed data in this report consider only multiemployer DB pension plans that filed
Schedule MB for the 2017 plan year. Not all multiemployer DB pension plans file Schedule MB.
For example, some plans that received PBGC financial assistance or had experienced a
withdrawal of all employers in the plan (but which were still paying benefits to retired
participants) did not file Schedule MB in 2017. This analysis does not include 59 plans that did
not file a Schedule MB, 64 plans that received PBGC financial assistance in FY2017 or FY2018,
and three terminated plans. This analysis provides information only about the remaining 1,229
plans in the 2017 plan year.
In 2017, these 1,229 active plans not receiving PBGC financial assistance that filed Schedule MB
had 10.4 million participants. Among participants in these plans
 about 36.3% were active participants (working and accruing benefits in a plan);
 about 35.7% were retired participants (currently receiving benefits from a plan)
or beneficiaries of deceased participants who were receiving or are entitled to
receive benefits; and
 about 28.0% were separated, vested participants (not accruing benefits from a
plan, but owed benefits and will receive them at eligibility age).
Plans report two values of assets and two values of liabilities: (1) the actuarial value and current
value of assets and (2) the actuarial value and the current value of liabilities (also called the RPA
’94 [for Retirement Protection Act of 1994] liability, passed as part of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act [P.L. 103-465]). The two values of assets are generally similar. The two values of
liabilities often differ. The main difference is the value of the discount rate that is used to value
plan liabilities.14 The actuarial valuation of liabilities typically discounts them using the expected
return on assets. The RPA ’94 valuation of liabilities discounts them using a lower rate, based on
interest rates on 30-year Treasury securities.15 The RPA ’94 valuation method results in a higher
valuation of plan liabilities compared to the actuarial valuation method.

11 Available at https://www.efast.dol.gov/portal/app/disseminate?execution=e1s1.
12 These were plans that indicated on Form 5500 that they were a multiemployer plan on Part I, Line A, and (1) that
they were a DB plan in the List of Plan Characteristics Codes in Part II, Line 8a, or (2) that they filed a Schedule MB.
One plan had three filings in the data; only the most recent filing was included in this analysis. Four plans had duplicate
filings in the data. In three cases, a plan submitted two filings because it was merged with another plan and provided a
separate filing with plan information at the time of the merge. In these cases, the filing that provided information about
the plan prior to the merge was used. In the fourth case, two filings were in the dataset, but only one of the filings was
available for download by search on the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) website, and so the downloadable filing was
used.
13 This includes the number of active participants, retired participants receiving benefits, retired or separated
participants entitled to future benefits, and deceased participants whose beneficiaries are receiving or are entitled to
receive future benefits.
14 For more information on discounting liabilities in pension plans, see Appendix A of CRS Report R43305,
Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans: A Primer.
15 See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, Technical Update Number: 95-1, January 26, 1995, at
https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/other-guidance/tu/technical-update-95-1-retirement-protection-act-1994.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

In 2017, these 1,229 plans had $494.5 billion in assets and owed participants $1,145 billion in
benefits, resulting in total underfunding of $651.0 billion (on a current value [RPA ’94] basis). On
an actuarial basis, these plans had $512.5 billion in assets and owed participants $659.2 billion,
resulting in total underfunding of $146.7 billion.16
Among plans that filed Schedule MB in 2017, the median RPA ’94 discount rate was 3.05%, and
the median discount rate used to calculate the actuarial value of liabilities was 7.25%.17 The
discount rate used by PBGC is based on a survey of insurance annuity prices and is closer to the
RPA ’94 rate.18 For example, the PBGC for discounting multiemployer plan liabilities in 2016
(the most recent year available) was 2.81%.19
Among the 1,229 multiemployer plans in 2017 that submitted Schedule MB, 1,217 were
underfunded (owed more in future benefits than they had in current assets) and 12 plans were
overfunded (had more in assets than they owed in future benefits) on a current value basis. On
actuarial value basis, 990 plans were underfunded, and 239 plans were overfunded.
Zone Status of Multiemployer Plans in 2017
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA; P.L. 109-280) required that multiemployer plans that
meet specified financial criteria must report to the IRS their financial condition as being in one of
several categories. The categories are described in Table 1. Several of the categories refer to a
measure called the funded percentage, which is a measure of a plan’s ability to pay benefits owed
based on the plan’s assets. For example, a funded percentage of 100% indicates that a plan’s
current value of assets is adequate to cover the present value of future owed benefits, and a
percentage lower than 100% indicates that the value of a plan’s liabilities exceeds the value of its
assets.









16 Current value of assets are found on Schedule MB, Line 2a, and the current value of liabilities are found on Schedule
MB, Line 2(b)(4)(2). Actuarial value of assets are found on Schedule MB, Line 1b(2), and the actuarial value of
liabilities are found on Schedule MB, Line 1c(3).
17 Fifty-seven plans had RPA ’94 rates that were manually corrected (e.g., the plans indicated a rate of 305% instead of
3.05%).
18 See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, The Financial Condition of PBGC’s Multiemployer Insurance Program,
2001, footnote 2, at https://www.pbgc.gov/documents/financial_condition_of_multiemployer_1201.pdf.
19 See Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 2017 Pension Insurance Data Tables, table M-9, at
https://www.pbgc.gov/sites/default/files/2017_pension_data_tables.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 10 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Table 1. Multiemployer Funding Status Categories
Category
Description
No Category
Plans that do not meet any of the categories below are often called green zone plans. A
(sometimes called
green zone plan does not have to address its underfunding, if any.
green zone)
Endangered
A plan is in endangered status if (1) the plan’s funded percentage is less than 80% funded or
(sometimes called
(2) the plan has a funding deficiency in the current year or is projected to have one in the
yellow zone) /
next six years. A plan is seriously endangered if it meets both of these criteria.
Seriously
Endangered
(sometimes called
orange zone)
Critical
A plan is in critical status if any of the fol owing conditions apply: (1) the plan’s funded
(sometimes called
percentage is less than 65% and in the next six years the value of the plan’s assets and
red zone)
contributions wil be less than the value of benefits; (2) in the current year, the plan is not
expected to receive 100% of the contributions required by the plan sponsor, or the plan is
not expected to receive 100% of the required contributions for any of the next three years
(four years if the plan’s funding percentage is 65% or less); (3) the plan is expected to be
insolvent within five years (within seven years if the plan’s funding percentage is 65% or
less); or (4) the cost of the current year’s benefits and the interest on unfunded liabilities
are greater than the contributions for the current year, the present value of benefits for
inactive participants is greater than the present value of benefits for active participants, and
there is expected to be a funding deficiency within five years. Plans not in critical status may
elect to be in critical status if they are projected to be so in the next five years.
Critical and
A plan is in critical and declining status if (1) it is in critical status and (2) the plan actuary
Declining
projects the plan wil become insolvent within the current year or within either the next 14
years or the next 19 years, as specified in law. Plans in critical and declining status must
provide notice to plan participants, beneficiaries, the col ective bargaining parties, PBGC,
and DOL.
Plans in critical and declining status may be eligible to apply to the U.S. Department of the
Treasury to reduce benefits to participants up to certain limits, if the benefit reductions
restore the plan to solvency.
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Note: The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA; P.L. 109-280) required plans to report their status as
endangered, seriously endangered, or critical. The Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA; passed as
part of P.L. 113-235) added the status of critical and declining.
Table 2 lists the number of plans, participants, and total underfunding in each zone for the 2017
plan year.
Plans that are in endangered or seriously endangered status must adopt a funding improvement
plan.20 A funding improvement plan is a range of options (such as increased contributions and
reductions in future benefit accruals) that, when adopted, will reduce a plan’s underfunding. The
reduction in underfunding is by 33% during a 10-year funding improvement period (for plans in
endangered status) or by 20% during a 15-year funding improvement period (for plans in
seriously endangered status). Plans in endangered or seriously endangered status cannot increase
benefits during the funding improvement period.

20 See 26 U.S.C. §432(c).
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 10 link to page 10 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Plans in critical status must adopt a rehabilitation plan.21 The rehabilitation plan is a range of
options (such as increased employer contributions and reductions in future benefit accruals) that,
when adopted, will allow the plan to emerge from critical status during a 10-year rehabilitation
period. If a plan cannot emerge from critical status by the end of the rehabilitation period using
reasonable measures (referred to as a plan that has exhausted reasonable measures, or an ERM
plan),22 it must either install measures to (1) emerge from critical status at a later time (after the
end of the rehabilitation period) or (2) forestall insolvency. Plans in critical status may not
increase benefits during the rehabilitation period. In Table 2, plans that are in critical status are
classified by whether (1) they are projected to emerge from critical status within the rehabilitation
period, or (2) they indicated that they have exhausted reasonable measures and would not emerge
from critical status within the rehabilitation period and that the rehabilitation plan is designed to
forestall insolvency.23 Some of the ERM plans are likely to become insolvent, although they do
not meet the definition of being in critical and declining status.
CRS analysis of 2017 Form 5500 data reported in Table 2 indicated the following:
Green Zone: 794 plans were in the green zone. These plans covered 6.0 million
participants, or 57.7% of participants in multiemployer DB plans that reported a
zone status.
Endangered or Seriously Endangered: 132 plans were either endangered or
seriously endangered. These plans covered 1.0 million participants, or 9.6% of
participants in multiemployer DB plans that reported a zone status.
Critical: 190 plans were in critical status. These plans covered 2.2 million
participants (20.8%). One hundred thirty-two plans were in critical status but
were expected to emerge from critical status by the end of the rehabilitation
period. Fifty-eight of the 190 plans in critical status do not expect to be able to
emerge from critical status by the end of the rehabilitation period and will remain
in critical status past the end of the rehabilitation period (or indefinitely), or
possibly become insolvent.24
Critical and Declining: 113 plans were in critical and declining status. These
plans covered 1.2 million participants, or 11.8% of participants in multiemployer
DB plans that reported a zone status.

21 See 26 U.S.C. §432(e).
22 See https://www.pbgc.gov/documents/Projections-Report-2015.pdf.
23 On Schedule MB of Form 5500, plans in critical status must indicate the year in which they (1) expect to emerge
from critical status or (2) become insolvent.
24 Ninety-three plans in critical status did not indicate whether their rehabilitation plan was based on emerging from
critical status or forestalling insolvency. In these cases, CRS examined the actuarial report following the Form 5500. In
84 cases, the rehabilitation plan appears to have been based on emerging from critical status; in 9 cases, it appears to
have been based on forestalling insolvency. CRS updated the data accordingly.
Congressional Research Service

6

Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Table 2. Zone Status of Multiemployer Defined Benefit Plans in 2017
(among plans that reported zone status on Form 5500 Schedule MB for 2017 plan year)
Participants
(As Reported on Schedule
Status
Plans
MB)
Percentage
Percentage
Among
Among
Underfunding
Participants in
Multiemployer
Underfunding
(in bil ions of
Multiemployer
Plans That
(in bil ions of
dol ars;
Plans that
Reported
dol ars; RPA
actuarial
Reported

Number
Zone Status
’94 basis)
basis)
Number
Zone Status
Green Zone
794
64.6%
-$345.9
-37.3
6,005,803
57.7%
Endangered
128
10.4%
-$78.1
-20.8
908,394
8.7%
Seriously
4
0.3%
-$6.5
-2.1
96,347
0.9%
Endangered
Critical
190
15.5%
-$120.5
-33.6
2,167,449
20.8%
Projected to
132
10.7%
-$88.5
-$22.8
1,309,280
12.6%
Emerge from
Critical Status

Has
58
4.7%
-$32.0
-10.8
858,169
8.2%
Exhausted
Reasonable

Measures
(ERM)

Critical and
113
9.2%
-$100.0
-52.9
1,232,947
11.8%
Declining
Total
1,229
100.0%
-$651.0
-146.7
10,410,940
100.0%
Source: CRS analysis of Form 5500 datasets available from the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) website (data
last modified February 28, 2020).
Notes: Percentages of plans and participants may not add to 100% due to rounding. Number of participants are
found on Schedule MB, Line 2b(4)(1). Underfunding on an RPA ’94 basis is calculated using the current value of
assets (Schedule MB, Line 2a) and the RPA ’94 current liability (Schedule MB, Line 2b(4)(2)). Underfunding on an
actuarial basis is calculated using the actuarial value of assets (Schedule MB, Line 1b(2) and the actuarial value of
liabilities (Schedule MB, Line 1c(3)). Plans report two values of assets and two values of liabilities: the actuarial
value and current value of assets and the actuarial value and the current value (RPA ’94, named for the
Retirement Protection Act of 1994) of liabilities. The two values of assets are generally similar. The two values of
liabilities often differ. The main difference is the value of the discount rate that is used to value plan liabilities.
The actuarial valuation of liabilities typically discounts them using the expected return on assets. The RPA ’94
current liability uses a lower discount rate, based on interest rates on 30-year Treasury securities. The RPA ’94
valuation method results in a higher valuation of plan liabilities compared to the actuarial valuation method.
Sixty-four insolvent plans that received Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) financial assistance are
not included, even if the plan filed Schedule MB, because not all plans that receive PBGC financial assistance file
Schedule MB. In addition, 25 plans that were not classified as terminated or not receiving PBGC financial
assistance filed Schedule MB in the Form 5500 data but did not report a zone status for the 2017 plan year. For
these plans, CRS examined the Form 5500 filed with DOL and added the plans’ zone status after an examination
of the Schedule MB attached to the plan’s actuarial report. In 22 of the 25 instances, the zone status was in the
Schedule MB attached to the plan’s actuarial report. In 3 of the 25 instances, there was no zone status, but the
plans had a funded percentage of over 90% and were assumed to be green zone.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12 link to page 12 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

A plan in critical status must develop a rehabilitation plan, which is a set of options intended to
allow the plan to emerge from critical status during the rehabilitation period. However, some
plans are in such poor financial condition that they cannot adopt any reasonable options to
emerge from critical status by the end of their rehabilitation period. These plans are referred to as
having exhausted reasonable measures (ERM plans). Rehabilitation for ERM plans is based on
forestalling plan insolvency. Some ERM plans may become insolvent (but do not meet the criteria
for being in declining status). Other ERM plans indicated that they would not become insolvent
but would remain in critical status after their rehabilitation period will have ended. Ninety-three
plans in critical status did not indicate whether their rehabilitation plan was based on emerging
from critical status or forestalling insolvency. In these cases, CRS examined the actuarial report
following the Form 5500. In 84 cases, the rehabilitation plan appears to have been based on
emerging from critical status; in 9 cases, it appears to have been based on forestalling insolvency.
The data in the table reflect CRS’s updates.
Multiemployer Plan Insolvencies by Year
As noted above, data from Schedule MB of Form 5500 for the 2017 plan year showed that 113
plans indicated that they were in critical and declining status and expected to become insolvent.
As part of their Form 5500 filings, multiemployer plans that are in critical and declining status,
which are by definition expected to become insolvent, must indicate the year in which they expect
insolvency.
Table 3 lists the number of pension plans in critical and declining status by expected year of
insolvency. The table also contains the number of participants in these plans and the dollar
amount of benefits the plans paid in 2017. The amount of benefits paid on a yearly basis at
insolvency is likely to be different compared to the amount reported for 2017, particularly for
plans with an insolvency year many years in the future. However, this information provides
context on the scale of the problem. In addition, because of the maximum guarantee, some
participants would likely not receive 100% of the benefits earned under the plan. As noted above,
using 2013 data, PBGC estimated that 51% of participants in plans that were terminated at the
time and likely to receive PBGC financial assistance in the future would likely see their benefits
reduced because of the PBGC maximum guarantee.
An additional 63 plans in critical status had exhausted reasonable measures and would either be
unable to emerge from critical status or become insolvent. These plans are not included in the
analysis of Table 3.





Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 link to page 12 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Table 3. Expected Year of Insolvency of Multiemployer Defined Benefit Plans in
Critical and Declining Status
(2017 plan year data)
Expected Year of
Number of Plans
Number of
Benefits Paid by Plans
Insolvency
Participants
in 2017
2017
1
3,497
$13,315,611
2018
2
4,278
$3,805,963
2019
4
4,524
$35,054,271
2020
8
55,381
$208,985,517
2021
5
11,498
$69,415,267
2022
7
138,755
$778,749,098
2023
8
18,309
$77,343,532
2024
3
2,842
$23,387,591
2025
7
395,113
$2,986,150,904
2026
7
46,299
$338,689,374
2027
2
5,247
$11,594,123
2028
4
71,307
$289,351,340
2029
11
124,320
$345,624,215
2030
14
62,170
$209,835,604
2031
6
4,551
$39,883,087
2032
7
44,860
$158,580,840
2033
6
85,807
$657,125,445
2034
4
17,649
$74,148,828
2035
2
13,500
$43,373,700
2036
1
317
$2,681,662
2040a
1
2,037
$7,613,815
2043a
1
289
$1,011,016
2048a
1
110,714
$653,412,457
2099a
1
9,683
$15,398,218
Total
113
1,232,947
$7,044,531,508
Source: CRS analysis of Form 5500 data for the 2017 Plan Year (data last modified February 28, 2020).
Notes: Number of participants are found on Schedule MB, Line 2b(4)(1). Expected benefit payments are found
on Schedule MB, Line 1d(3). This table only includes the 1,229 active plans not receiving Pension Benefit
Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) financial assistance that filed Schedule MB in plan year 2017.
a. Plans in critical and declining status are projected to become insolvent within 19 years. Each Form 5500
provides supplemental information that details the criteria for zone certification. The insolvency year listed
for four plans exceeded 19 years. In three cases, it appears that the insolvency year listed is based on
updated rehabilitation plans, which could be based on more recent actuarial valuations. In one case, the
expected year of insolvency was listed as 2099. This plan indicated that its rehabilitation plan was based on
forestalling insolvency but is no longer projected to become insolvent.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 14 link to page 14 link to page 14 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

The 25 Largest Multiemployer Plans
Table 4
provides data on the 25 largest multiemployer DB plans (by number of participants) in
the 2017 plan year, which were those with more than 75,000 participants. For each plan, the table
contains the number of participants, the zone status in 2017, the current and actuarial funded
percentage, the current and actuarial amount of underfunding in the plan, and the amount of
expected benefit payments in the 2017 plan year. Funding amount is the difference between the
plan’s assets and present value of future benefits owed. A negative funding amount indicates that
a plan is underfunded.
In total, the plans in Table 4 have 4.8 million participants, which is 46.1% of participants in
multiemployer DB plans that filed Schedule MB in plan year 2017. Three plans in Table 4 were
in critical and declining status in plan year 2017: Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas
Pension Plan; Bakery and Confectionery Union and Industry International Pension Fund; and the
United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Plan.
Congressional Research Service

10


Table 4. The 25 Largest Multiemployer Defined Benefit Pension Plans in the 2017 Plan Year
Current
Actuarial
Funded
Funded
Percentage
Percentage
(Current
Current Funding
(Actuarial Value
Actuarial Funding
Value of
Amount, in billions
of Assets /
Amount, in billions
Expected
Participants
Assets / RPA
(Current Value of
Actuarial
(Actuarial Value of
Benefit
at End of Plan
Zone Status in
’94 Current
Assets—RPA ’94
Accrued
Assets—Actuarial
Payments in
Plan Name
Year
2017
Liability)
Current Liability)
Liability)
Accrued Liability)
2017 Plan Year
Western
Conference of
597,850
Green Zone
53.4%
-$33.1
91.2%
-$3.7
$2,726,459,000
Teamsters
Pension Plan
National
Electrical
543,708
Green Zone
41.3%
-$18.8
83.0%
-$2.8
$1,045,133,461
Benefit Fund
Central States,
Southeast and
Critical &
Southwest
384,921
Areas Pension
Declining
27.3%
-$40.7
37.8%
-$25.7
$2,901,677,461
Plan
Legacy Plan of
The National
Retirement
365,132
Critical
33.3%
-$4.5
66.3%
-$1.2
$325,591,184
Fund
IAM National
Pension Fund
275,996
Green Zone
47.3%
-$12.3
92.2%
-$1.0
$753,576,944
1199 SEIU
Health Care
Employees
258,519
Green Zone
40.9%
-$14.2
82.5%
-$2.2
$895,050,680
Pension Fund
CRS-11


Current
Actuarial
Funded
Funded
Percentage
Percentage
(Current
Current Funding
(Actuarial Value
Actuarial Funding
Value of
Amount, in billions
of Assets /
Amount, in billions
Expected
Participants
Assets / RPA
(Current Value of
Actuarial
(Actuarial Value of
Benefit
at End of Plan
Zone Status in
’94 Current
Assets—RPA ’94
Accrued
Assets—Actuarial
Payments in
Plan Name
Year
2017
Liability)
Current Liability)
Liability)
Accrued Liability)
2017 Plan Year
United Food
and Commercial
Workers Intl
222,979
Green Zone
55.5%
-$4.7
102.0%
+$0.1
$404,169,568
Union - Industry
Pension Fund
U.F.C.W.
Consolidated
218,246
Green Zone
46.1%
-$4.5
90.9%
-$0.4
$308,594,286
Pension Fund
Central Pension
Fund of the
IUOE and
197,860
Green Zone
46.8%
-$17.8
94.3%
-$1.0
$1,087,815,379
Participating
Employers
Southern
California
UFCW Unions
and Food
179,494
Critical
37.8%
-$7.5
72.1%
-$1.9
$454,040,762
Employers Joint
Pension Trust
Fund
Plumbers and
Pipefitters
145,842
Endangered
38.7%
-$9.2
76.2%
-$1.9
$613,764,304
National
Pension Fund
Sheet Metal
Workers’
138,096
Endangered
32.1%
-$9.1
60.6%
-$3.0
$510,152,731
National
Pension Fund
CRS-12


Current
Actuarial
Funded
Funded
Percentage
Percentage
(Current
Current Funding
(Actuarial Value
Actuarial Funding
Value of
Amount, in billions
of Assets /
Amount, in billions
Expected
Participants
Assets / RPA
(Current Value of
Actuarial
(Actuarial Value of
Benefit
at End of Plan
Zone Status in
’94 Current
Assets—RPA ’94
Accrued
Assets—Actuarial
Payments in
Plan Name
Year
2017
Liability)
Current Liability)
Liability)
Accrued Liability)
2017 Plan Year
UFCW -
Northern
California
128,138
Critical
32.1%
-$6.8
60.2%
-$2.3
$414,707,165
Employers Joint
Pension
Steelworkers
Pension Trust
114,138
Green Zone
44.4%
-$5.2
81.2%
-$0.9
$275,229,076
Bakery and
Confectionery
Union and
Critical &
Industry
110,714
Declining
36.3%
-$7.5
54.7%
-$3.6
$653,412,457
International
Pension Fund
S.E.I.U. National
Industry
102,276
Critical
42.1%
-$1.5
75.4%
-$0.4
$132,613,865
Pension Fund
Building Service
32BJ Pension
102,039
Critical
34.1%
-$4.5
61.5%
-$1.5
$283,132,941
Fund
Sound
Retirement
98,263
Critical
42.2%
-$3.1
78.3%
-$0.6
$178,410,175
Trust
Southern
Nevada
Culinary and
97,395
Green Zone
51.1%
-$2.0
92.2%
-$0.2
$161,694,076
Bartenders
Pension Plan
CRS-13


Current
Actuarial
Funded
Funded
Percentage
Percentage
(Current
Current Funding
(Actuarial Value
Actuarial Funding
Value of
Amount, in billions
of Assets /
Amount, in billions
Expected
Participants
Assets / RPA
(Current Value of
Actuarial
(Actuarial Value of
Benefit
at End of Plan
Zone Status in
’94 Current
Assets—RPA ’94
Accrued
Assets—Actuarial
Payments in
Plan Name
Year
2017
Liability)
Current Liability)
Liability)
Accrued Liability)
2017 Plan Year
United Mine
Workers of
Critical &
America 1974
96,324
Declining
29.9%
-$6.5
46.3%
-$3.5
$614,269,617
Pension Plan
1199SEIU Home
Care Employees
88,238
Green Zone
53.9%
-$0.3
93.4%
-$0.03
$28,053,188
Pension Fund
Adjustable Plan
of the National
Retirement
85,494
Green Zone
50.8%
-$0.1
91.7%
-$0.01
$8,576,077
Fund
International
Painters and
Seriously
Allied Trades
84,877
Endangered
33.2%
-$6.2
62.2%
-$2.0
$413,951,740
Industry
Pension Plan
Motion Picture
Industry
84,389
Green Zone
31.2%
-$7.5
67.4%
-$1.9
$305,644,000
Pension Plan
Bricklayers &
Trowel Trades
76,523
Endangered
38.3%
-$2.3
65.1%
-$0.8
$162,267,691
International
Pension Fund
Source: CRS analysis of Form 5500 data for the 2017 Plan Year (data last modified February 28, 2020).
Notes: Funded percentage is a measure of a plan’s ability to pay benefits owed based on the plan’s assets (e.g., a funded percentage of 100% indicates that a plan’s current
value of assets is adequate to cover the present value of future owed benefits). Funding amount is the difference between the plan’s assets and present value of future
benefits owed. A negative funding amount indicates that a plan is underfunded. Two separate funded percentage and plan underfunding measures are included in the
table: one uses the current value of assets (Schedule MB, Line 2a) and the RPA ’94 current liability (Schedule MB, Line 2b(4)(2)), and the other uses the actuarial value of
CRS-14


assets (Schedule MB, Line 1b(2)) and the actuarial accrued liability (Schedule MB, Line 1(c)(3)). Plans report two values of assets and two values of liabilities: the actuarial
value and current value of assets and the actuarial value and the current value (RPA ’94) of liabilities. The two values of assets are generally similar. The two values of
liabilities often differ. The main difference is the value of the discount rate that is used to value plan liabilities. The actuarial valuation of liabilities typically discounts them
using the expected return on assets. The RPA ’94 current liability (named for the Retirement Protection Act of 1994) uses a lower discount rate, based on interest rates
on 30-year Treasury securities. The RPA ’94 valuation method results in a higher valuation of plan liabilities compared to the actuarial valuation method. Number of
participants are found on Schedule MB, Line 2b(4)(1). Expected benefit payments are found on Schedule MB, Line 1d(3).
CRS-15

link to page 20 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

5% Contributors
Some employers participate in more than one multiemployer DB pension plan, and the insolvency
of one plan in which a particular employer participates could have implications for the other plans
in which that employer also participates. For example, an employer that leaves a multiemployer
plan generally has to pay withdrawal liability, which is the employer’s share of unfunded benefits
in that plan.25 An employer that withdraws from a plan may be required to acknowledge the
withdrawal liability in its financial statements, potentially affecting the employer’s access to
credit and its financial health.26 Other multiemployer plans that receive contributions from an
employer that is considered a large contributor could be affected if that employer is forced to
withdraw from those plans because of financial difficulties.
Schedule R, Part V, Line 13 of Form 5500 requires multiemployer DB plans to list employers that
contribute more than 5% of that plan’s total contributions (referred to in this report as “5%
contributors”). Employer contributions listed in Form 5500 include (1) regular employer
contributions (for employers with active participants in the plan) and (2) employer withdrawal
liability (for employers that have withdrawn from the plan).27 For the purposes of calculating the
5% threshold, it is unclear whether plans should include withdrawal liability in the calculations.
PBGC indicated that its staff’s view was that withdrawal liability should not be included in the
calculations and that other agencies were considering the issue in possible revisions to Form
5500.28
In addition to the employer’s name, the form lists each employer’s Employer Identification
Number (EIN)29 and dollar amount contributed.30
Of the 1,355 plans that indicated they were multiemployer DB pension plans, 1,161 plans
indicated that they had at least one 5% contributor in 2017. Among plans with at least one 5%
contributor, the median number of 5% contributors was four. Table 5 lists employers whose

25 For more on withdrawal liability, see https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/multiemployer/withdrawal-liability, or Charles B.
Wolf and Patrick W. Spangler, Withdrawal Liability To Multi-Employer Pension Plans Under ERISA, Vedder Price
P.C., https://www.vedderprice.com/-/media/files/vedder-thinking/publications/2015/05/updates-to-withdrawal-liability-
to-multiemployer-p/files/2015-withdrawal-liability-to-multiemployer-pension/fileattachment/2015-withdrawal-
liability-to-multiemployer-pension.pdf.
26 See, for example, Hazel Bradford, Groups Tackle Multiemployer Plans’ Withdrawal Liability, Pensions and
Investments, July 8, 2013, http://www.pionline.com/article/20130708/PRINT/307089995/groups-tackle-
multiemployer-plans-withdrawal-liability; or McGuire Woods, FASB Updates Multiemployer Plan Disclosure
Requirements: Estimate of Withdrawal Liability Not Required
, September 28, 2011, https://www.mcguirewoods.com/
Client-Resources/Alerts/2011/9/FASB-Updates-Multiemployer-Plan-Disclosure-Requirements-Estimate-of-
Withdrawal-Liability-Not-Required.aspx.
27 Attached to each Form 5500 available via search on the DOL website is the plan’s audited financial statements
report. Plans’ financial statements sometimes report the amount of contributions from active employers and the amount
of contributions that are withdrawal liability.
28 See American Bar Association, Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Q&A Session with PBGC, May 9, 2012,
Question 31, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/employee_benefits/
2012_pbgc_final.authcheckdam.pdf.
29 An EIN is a number issued by the IRS to identify a business entity. See Employer ID Numbers available at
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/employer-id-numbers.
30 CRS examined the Schedule R data and made edits where appropriate. CRS first grouped employers based on the
listed EIN. Employers that appeared on multiple Schedule Rs (e.g., they were 5% contributors in more than one plan)
were sometimes spelled differently. For example, the United Parcel Service also appeared as United Parcel Services,
UPS, and United Parcel Service Inc.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 20 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

contributions as 5% contributors totaled $25 million or more in 2017.31 Note that an employer’s
total contributions to all of the multiemployer plans to which it contributed could have been
larger than the amount listed in Table 5 if the employer contributed to additional plans, but whose
contributions to those other plans were less than 5% of a plan’s total contributions.32
The United Parcel Service (UPS) is the largest 5% contributor in terms of the dollar amount of
contributions as a 5% contributor. A number of grocery chains contributed at least $25 million as
5% contributors: Kroger, Albertsons/Safeway, and Giant Food are among the 10 largest 5%
contributors (as ranked by contributions as 5% contributors).33
Table 5. Employers That Contributed at Least $25 Million as 5% Contributors in the
2017 Plan Year
Number of Plans to Which
Company Contributes at
Amount of Contributions as a
Least 5% of Total
Employer
5% Contributor
Contributions
United Parcel Service
$1,819,291,390
26
Kroger
$400,171,814
16
Albertons/Safeway
$327,770,305
17
SSA Marine, Inc.
$139,661,920
14
Otis Elevator Company
$112,402,669
1
ABF Freight System
$110,993,664
10
Mount Sinai Medical Center
$106,136,549
4
Montefiore Medical Center
$93,962,953
3
Thyssenkrup Elevator
$93,902,111
1
Giant Food
$89,062,316
8
Twentieth Century Fox
$77,849,927
6
Schindler Elevator Corporation
$75,986,271
2
New York Presbyterian Hospital
$75,731,033
2
Maersk Lines
$71,121,939
8
Arcelor Mittal
$69,165,334
1
Long Island Jewish Hospital
$66,456,326
1
Kone, Inc.
$64,356,471
1
Total Terminals International
$61,239,682
2
United States Steel Corporation
$58,767,259
1

31 Total contributions include both employer and employee contributions. Most contributions to multiemployer
contributions are from employers. CRS analysis of the Form 5500 data indicated that among plans that filed Schedule
MB, 1.5% had employee contributions in 2017. Among multiemployer DB plans that had employee contributions in
2017, employee contributions were 1.7% of the plans’ total contributions.
32 It is not possible to determine the contribution amounts of employers that contributed 5% or less of total
contributions to a plan.
33 Safeway and Albertsons merged in 2015. In many instances, CRS included a grocery store subsidiary as belonging to
its parent company (e.g., employer contributions from Ralphs were combined with Kroger’s contributions because
Ralphs is a subsidiary of Kroger).
Congressional Research Service

17

Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Number of Plans to Which
Company Contributes at
Amount of Contributions as a
Least 5% of Total
Employer
5% Contributor
Contributions
Bimbo Bakeries
$56,097,114
12
Walt Disney
$54,233,474
7
Warner Bros. Pictures
$52,386,469
3
Marine Terminals Corporation
$51,152,290
8
Eagle Marine Services Limited
$51,066,866
1
United Airlines
$50,071,833
1
Acco Engineered Systems
$48,394,739
10
Precision Pipeline
$48,159,767
8
Stater Brothers Market
$47,107,280
1
NBC Universal City Studios
$43,947,331
4
Pacific Crane Maintenance Co.
$41,759,933
1
Everport Terminal Services
$41,587,237
1
YRC Worldwide
$40,784,968
9
Savemart Supermarkets
$40,050,462
1
Allina Health System
$38,696,657
4
Crowley Marine Services
$36,796,397
3
UFCW International Union
$36,168,000
1
CH2M Hil Plateau Remediation
$35,319,001
1
Company
Intrepid Personnel & Provisioning
$34,567,245
2
Shoprite
$34,362,509
27
NYU Hospital Center
$33,508,227
2
Washington River Protection
$32,517,828
1
Solutions, LLC
American Building Maintenance
$31,783,597
6
Mission Support Alliance LLC
$31,645,484
1
Spirit Aerosystems, Inc
$30,604,125
1
Matson Navigation Company
$30,435,377
10
Tote Services Inc.
$29,008,003
2
Supervalu
$28,843,789
9
Rosendin Electric
$28,838,177
10
Hilton
$27,288,285
13
Kiewit
$26,757,481
21
Brand Energy Services
$25,470,742
12
Raley’s Supermarkets
$25,450,681
1
Source: CRS analysis of Form 5500 data for the 2017 plan year (data last modified February 28, 2020).
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 23 link to page 23 Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans

Notes: An employer’s contributions to all multiemployer plans to which it contributed in 2017 could have been
larger if the employer was not a 5% contributor in some additional plans. In many instances, CRS investigated
whether a large company had any subsidiaries (and conversely, whether an employer belonged to a parent
company). In cases where CRS found that an employer had one or more subsidiary companies, subsidiary
employer contribution amounts were combined with the parent company. This occurred frequently in certain
industries, such as grocery, hospitality, and entertainment. For example, Shoprite had over 10 separate
subsidiaries (e.g., with employer names such as “Saker ShopRite” or “S/R Col itas”) that were combined into one
encompassing “Shoprite” contribution for the purposes of this table.
5% Contributors in the Largest Critical and
Declining Multiemployer DB Plans
Table 6
lists the 5% contributors in the 12 largest multiemployer DB plans that are in critical and
declining status (ranked by the amount of total contributions to the plan for the 2017 plan year)
and the number of plans in which each employer is a 5% contributor.
Table 6 also lists the amount of the employer’s contributions, the total number of contributing
employers to the plan, the total amount of contributions to the plan, and the amount of
contributions from 5% contributors as a percentage of total plan contributions. Total plan
contributions include both required employer contributions and withdrawal liability, although
plans might not include withdrawal liability payments when determining 5% contributors.34

34 The Form 5500 data do not list separately contributions from withdrawal liability and required employer
contributions.
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 25
Table 6. Contributions and 5% Employers in the 12 Largest Critical and Declining Multiemployer DB Pension Plans, Ranked
by Total Contributions in 2017 Plan Year
Plan Name
Contributions by 5%
5% Contributors (number of
Contributions
Contributors as a
plans to which company is 5%
by 5%
Number of 5%
Total Number of
Total Plan
Percentage of Total
contributor)
Contributors
Contributors
Contributorsa
Contributions
Contributions
Central States, Southeast and Southwest
Areas Pension Plan

2
1,325
$809,879,331
14.0%
ABF Freight System (10)
$77,823,194




YRC Worldwide (9)
$35,454,032




New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry
1
378
$365,798,439
43.7%
Pension
United Parcel Service (26)
$160,023,139




New York State Teamsters Conference
1
174
$184,153,612
54.2%
Pension & Retirement Fund
United Parcel Services (26)
$99,732,835




Bakery & Confectionery Union & Industry
5
192
$165,190,396
60.4%
International Pension Fund
Bimbo Bakeries (12)
$37,781,659




Mondelez Global LLC (2)
$22,489,252




Albertsons/Safeway (17)
$16,883,046




Kroger (16)
$12,371,034




United States Bakery (1)
$10,256,692




United Mine Workers of America 1974
3
40
$112,301,000
22.0%
Pension Plan
Murray Energy (1)
$17,916,448




Drummond Company, Inc. (1)
$3,715,796




Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC
$3,025,659




(1)
CRS-20

link to page 25
Plan Name
Contributions by 5%
5% Contributors (number of
Contributions
Contributors as a
plans to which company is 5%
by 5%
Number of 5%
Total Number of
Total Plan
Percentage of Total
contributor)
Contributors
Contributors
Contributorsa
Contributions
Contributions
Western Pennsylvania Teamsters and




Employers Pension Fund
1
115
$66,777,902
44.5%
United Parcel Service (26)
$29,705,920




FELRA & UFCW Pension

2
3
$49,915,380
86.6%
Plan
Giant Food (8)
$25,609,327




Albertsons/Safeway (17)
$17,597,148




GCIU – Employer
Retirement Benefit Plan


1
206
$36,633,728
1.3%
Chicago Tribune Company (B,C)
$486,639




(1)
Automotive Industries
Pension Plan


3
144
$34,424,825
22.5%
Gil ig Corporation (1)
$2,803,190




SSA Marine, Inc. (14)
$2,777,784




United Parcel Service (26)
$2,161,784




Graphic Communications
Conference of the
International Brotherhood of


0
93
$31,533,131
0%
Teamsters National Pension
Plan

No 5% employers
n/a




National Integrated Group Pension Plan
2
168
$22,020,540
7.0%
IAC Mendon LLC. (1)
$894,325




Tri County Electric Co., Inc. (1)
$655,274




CRS-21

link to page 25
Plan Name
Contributions by 5%
5% Contributors (number of
Contributions
Contributors as a
plans to which company is 5%
by 5%
Number of 5%
Total Number of
Total Plan
Percentage of Total
contributor)
Contributors
Contributors
Contributorsa
Contributions
Contributions
United Food and Commercial Workers Union &
3
60
$21,432,926
18.5%
Employers Midwest Pension Fund
Schnucks Markets (7)
$2,428,262




Supervalu (9)
$1,112,081




Comprehensive Systems, Inc. (1)
$414,767




Source: CRS analysis of Form 5500 data for the 2017 plan year (data last modified February 28, 2020).
Notes: A 5% contributor is an employer that contributed more than 5% of a plan’s contributions. Multiemployer plans might or might not include withdrawal liability
calculations in calculating the 5% threshold for employer calculations. The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) indicated that, in the view of PBGC staff,
withdrawal liability was not meant to be included in the calculations; but PBGC indicated that the issue involved other federal agencies, which were considering a possible
revision to Form 5500. See American Bar Association, Joint Committee on Employee Benefits, Q&A Session with PBGC, May 9, 2012, Question 31, at
https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/employee_benefits/2012_pbgc_final.authcheckdam.pdf. For the purposes of this table, total plan contributions are
taken from Schedule MB of Form 5500, which include withdrawal liability and required employer contributions.
a. Plans report the total number of contributors to the plan on the Form 5500. In some cases, the actual number of contributors may be less than the reported
number, since it is possible that plans identify subsidiaries as separate employers rather than aggregate them under a parent company.

CRS-22

Data on Multiemployer Defined Benefit (DB) Pension Plans



Author Information

John J. Topoleski
Elizabeth A. Myers
Specialist in Income Security
Analyst in Income Security




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R45187 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED
23