Both the United States of America and Belgium attach great importance to communication duties in occupational pensions. Several legal sources in both countries provide the right to be informed to participants. The legislation in both countries seeks to ensure accurate, correct, transparent and understandable communication. Despite this resemblance, there are some differences in communication. The countries can learn from one another. Based on a theoretical framework developed in and for the European Union, the communication rights and duties in the USA and Belgium are analysed. This analysis leads to a better understanding of the different legal responsibilities, transparency rules, simplification efforts and technical correctness of the types of occupational pension information analyzed.
De BrabanterV.GieselinkG.PertryV.RoelsP.StevensY, (2014) Aanvullende pensioenen voor werknemers, Mechelen: Kluwer.
7.
DubuissonB.CallewaertV.De ConinckB.GathemG. (2009) La responsabilité civile – Chronique de jurisprudence 1996-2007 – Volume 1: Le fait générateur et le lien causal, Brussels, Larcier.
8.
DuibuissonB. (2010) ‘Responsabilité contractuelle et responsabilité aquilienne. Comparaison n’est past raison’ in StijnsS.WeryP. (eds.), De raakvlakken tussen de contractuele en de buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheid, Bruges: die Keure.
9.
FleischmanHillard (2017) ‘The Rise of the Mobile Devices: Putting Benefit Communication in Your Participants’ Hands’, Benefits Magazine, July.
10.
KozakB. (2010) Employee Benefit Plans, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
11.
LangbeinJ.H.PrattD.A.StabileS.J.StumpffA.W. (2015) Pension and Employee Benefit Law, 6th revised edition, Foundation Press.
12.
LiermanS. (2004) org, preventie en aansprakelijkheid, Antwerp: Intersentia.
13.
LustigJ. (2016) ‘Does Focus on Communications Mean Retirement Plan Participants Will Actually Read Them, Bloomberg Law Benefits and Executive Compensation Blog, March 2.
14.
MagermanK. (2016) ‘Enkele arbeidsrechtelijke vragen met betrekking tot de Wet Aanvullende Pensioenen’, Or., afl. 3.
15.
MilesA-M.M. (1998) ERISA Section 104(B) (4): What documents do employees have a right to demand from their employers?39(5) William and Mary Law Review, 1741–1778.
PrattD. (2012) ‘Summary Plan Descriptions After Amara’, 45(3) John Marshall Law Review. 811–860.
19.
PurcellP.StamanJ. (2008) Summary of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
20.
RosenbloomJ.S. (2005) The Handbook of Employee Benefits, 6th edition, New York: McGraw-Hill.
21.
StevensY. (2008). The comparison of the European Issues in Pension and Employee Benefit Law with the U.S. Federal Law Regulating Employee Benefits. The John Marshall Law Review, 41, 1190–1249.
22.
StevensY. (2017) ‘Het pensioenreglement als rechtsbron van aanvullende pensioenen’, TSR RDS2017, afl. 1–2.
StevensY.Van AsscheL. (2016) ‘The right to retirement pension information’, Brussels: European Commission, DG Employment, Social Protection and Inclusion.
TemmermanK.De Coster-BauchauS. (2017) Parl.St., Kamer comm. voor de sociale zaken en de subcommissie Rekenhof van de commissie voor de financiën en de begroting 2016-2017, 10 January, nr. 54.2249/001.
28.
VandenbergenA.WerniersA. (2014) ‘Inspraak van de werknemers en transparantie: moet iedereen een pensioenexpert zijn of hebben?’ in Van GysegemJ. (ed.) De Wet Aanvullende pensioenen is 10 jaar oud, Mechelen, Kluwer.
