Part 10 · Chapter 3

Taft-Hartley Governance and §515 Delinquent Contributions

Law stated as of October 3, 2026 · Multiemployer Plans and Withdrawal Liability

Scope and status

This chapter is written primarily for contributing employers and employer-appointed trustees of multiemployer (Taft-Hartley) plans: the LMRA §302(c)(5) structural rules, trustee status and duties, the plan-document architecture, ERISA §515 delinquent-contribution exposure and its narrow defenses, payroll audits, and the collection remedies.

Citations are to primary authority (LMRA §302 (29 U.S.C. §186); ERISA §§502(g)(2), 515; NLRA §8; and controlling case law). Related questions are treated elsewhere: the underlying fiduciary framework (ERISA §§404–406) in Part 3 (Fiduciary Duties and Prohibited Transactions); withdrawal liability in this Part's withdrawal-liability chapter; and zone-status bargaining consequences in this Part's funding/zones/SFA chapter. Labor-law advice (NLRA bargaining obligations, §301 CBA litigation) is adjacent — flag labor counsel where the issue is the bargaining relationship rather than the plan.

Sections

The opening sections of Part A are shown in full. The other sections are listed by title; their text is available to subscribers.

Part A — Taft-Hartley Structure and Governance

A1.LMRA §302(c)(5) — the structural exemption

Part 10, ch. 3, § A1

LMRA §302 makes employer payments to a union (or union-affiliated entity) unlawful — criminally — except through the §302(c)(5) trust-fund exemption: payments to a jointly trusteed trust fund, established by a written agreement, for the sole and exclusive benefit of employees and their families, with equal representation of employers and the union in administration and a deadlock-breaking neutral (an impartial umpire/arbitrator), plus annual audit. Statute: LMRA §302(c)(5), 29 U.S.C. §186(c)(5).

A2.Trustees wear one hat

Part 10, ch. 3, § A2

Management- and union-appointed trustees are ERISA fiduciaries owing undivided loyalty to participants — not representatives of the side that appointed them; the Supreme Court squarely rejected the "partisan trustee" model. Case law: Supreme Court — NLRB v. Amax Coal Co., 453 U.S. 322 (1981); Statute: ERISA §404(a). Deadlocks resolve through the trust's impartial-umpire mechanism rather than bargaining muscle.

A3The document architectureSubscribers

Part B — ERISA §515 Delinquent Contributions

B1The obligation and the "no defenses" designSubscribers
B2The post-expiration gap — §515 vs. the NLRASubscribers
B3AuditsSubscribers
B4Remedies — §502(g)(2) and who else can be liableSubscribers
B5Double-breasting and unit-scope planningSubscribers

The first Part of each chapter is open to everyone. The remaining sections, with their authority and practice points, are available to subscribers and to clients of ERISA Benefits Law Group, PLLC whose engagement includes access.