If a union wishes to start a multiemployer 401(k) plan for its members, will the plan be required to have both union and employer trustees, even if there are no employer contributions? A survey of the multiemployer 401(k)s out there leads me to say yes, and I'm assuming it's because the deferral is deemed to be an employer contribution pursuant to the employee's deferral selection, but is there another basis for it? Or are these plans jointly trusteed for no reason? Thanks.

Assuming that the fund is not established in the CBA and receives no employer contributions, it does not have to be jointly administered

As a follow up to my earlier comment, section 302©(5) of the Taft Hartley act requires that for contributions to be paid to a pension plan there must be a trust estableshed and it must be jointly administered by an equal number of union and employer trustees. Most likely if the union did want to establish a 401(k) plan it would have to be in the collecttive bargaining agreement. By the way the pension fund could be administered by employer only trustees, but if there are any union trustees there must be an equal number of union and employer trustees.

Can a union establish a prototype 401(k) plan? It is not clear to me how the union can be the "employer." Or is this treated as such under Code Section 413(b)? Would it have to be jointly administered as a Taft-Hartley plan? Thanks.

As it turns out, the 302(c)(5) would only apply if the union's own employees are unionized. If not, then the union can use one of the standardized plans out there.