Which body for pension complaint

Pursuit

Linton said:

Pursuit said:

The issue is they have statements like this and communicate it regularly to the subsidiary through various trusted platforms.  

"Employees subject to government/HMRC limitations, are free to save more than 7%, but the University's contribution is limited to a maximum of 9.5%".  

Not that I remember receiving any but if I request it what phrasing would I be looking for in the scheme rules?

I think you are getting into the area of employment law.  Whether you could claim that the email was a change to your terms of employment I have no idea but it seems a little far-fetched,  After all as stated it is correct.  However I am, like everyone else on this forum as far as I know, not a lawyer.  Perhaps you could raise the issue in a legal forum.

Really ISTM you are only going to get a resolution by talking to your employer perhaps using the email as evidence or a suggestion that they may wish to adopt.  There are only a limited number of outcomes:

 - You come to an agreement with your employer
 - You resign in protest
 - You sue your employer

are the ones that come to mind.

Which do you want?

Thanks, I am down about 3k on my pension so far which I wont get back. This could easily have been avoided as I used their new rate and my rate to meet my pension contribution target. I cannot see how it is ok to completely mislead employees as regard pension contribution rates. The new government pension changes sparked a renewed look at my pension hence the reason for the discovery of the discrepancy.

Also this statement... 

"Employees subject to government/HMRC limitations, are free to save more than 7%, but the University's contribution is limited to a maximum of 9.5%".

Is in the employee benefits page.

The organisation has not responded to requests for a meeting to get to the bottom of the issue. I basically want the underpayment sorted. I will contact ACAS in all probability

Thanks for your help

Marcon

Pat38493 said:

I tried to challenge my employer when they put the entire final salary scheme into deferment in 2008 on the basis that in my original 1992 employment contract, it said that I was entitled to be a member of a final salary pension scheme and even specified the % contributions that I needed to make and the final salary itself.

They told me that if refused to accept the changes, I was effectively choosing to leave the company (without severance).

I was thinking about hiring a solicitor to get some advice about it, but in the end I decided against it so I am not 100% sure if the company was correct or if they were just trying to scare me into not pursuing it.

You'd have lost. Even if you had a contractual entitlement to be a member of a final salary scheme (most contracts are much vaguer on the point), closing the scheme to future accrual would simply mean a change to your terms of employment. Provided the correct consultation processes were followed, there's no chance your employer could be forced into keeping the scheme open just for one disgruntled member!

Pat38493

Marcon said:

Pat38493 said:

I tried to challenge my employer when they put the entire final salary scheme into deferment in 2008 on the basis that in my original 1992 employment contract, it said that I was entitled to be a member of a final salary pension scheme and even specified the % contributions that I needed to make and the final salary itself.

They told me that if refused to accept the changes, I was effectively choosing to leave the company (without severance).

I was thinking about hiring a solicitor to get some advice about it, but in the end I decided against it so I am not 100% sure if the company was correct or if they were just trying to scare me into not pursuing it.

You'd have lost. Even if you had a contractual entitlement to be a member of a final salary scheme (most contracts are much vaguer on the point), closing the scheme to future accrual would simply mean a change to your terms of employment. Provided the correct consultation processes were followed, there's no chance your employer could be forced into keeping the scheme open just for one disgruntled member!

Probably right, but I was never really expecting them to keep it open, more wondering if I should be entitled to some kind of compensation for the loss.  I’m not an employment law expert but if they change my terms of employment and I reject it, doesn’t that mean they are in breach of contract and should pay me some kind of compensation I.e. severance?  Obviously it’s a moot point now 

Marcon

Pat38493 said:

Marcon said:

Pat38493 said:

I tried to challenge my employer when they put the entire final salary scheme into deferment in 2008 on the basis that in my original 1992 employment contract, it said that I was entitled to be a member of a final salary pension scheme and even specified the % contributions that I needed to make and the final salary itself.

They told me that if refused to accept the changes, I was effectively choosing to leave the company (without severance).

I was thinking about hiring a solicitor to get some advice about it, but in the end I decided against it so I am not 100% sure if the company was correct or if they were just trying to scare me into not pursuing it.

You'd have lost. Even if you had a contractual entitlement to be a member of a final salary scheme (most contracts are much vaguer on the point), closing the scheme to future accrual would simply mean a change to your terms of employment. Provided the correct consultation processes were followed, there's no chance your employer could be forced into keeping the scheme open just for one disgruntled member!

Probably right, but I was never really expecting them to keep it open, more wondering if I should be entitled to some kind of compensation for the loss.  I’m not an employment law expert but if they change my terms of employment and I reject it, doesn’t that mean they are in breach of contract and should pay me some kind of compensation I.e. severance?  Obviously it’s a moot point now 

Unlikely. In practice if a change to a contractual term can't be agreed, then it's likely your employer will terminate your employment (giving the required notice period, but nothing more than that) and then offer you a new contract on the new terms, which you can accept or reject. 

Pat38493

Marcon said:

Pat38493 said:

Marcon said:

Pat38493 said:

I tried to challenge my employer when they put the entire final salary scheme into deferment in 2008 on the basis that in my original 1992 employment contract, it said that I was entitled to be a member of a final salary pension scheme and even specified the % contributions that I needed to make and the final salary itself.

They told me that if refused to accept the changes, I was effectively choosing to leave the company (without severance).

I was thinking about hiring a solicitor to get some advice about it, but in the end I decided against it so I am not 100% sure if the company was correct or if they were just trying to scare me into not pursuing it.

You'd have lost. Even if you had a contractual entitlement to be a member of a final salary scheme (most contracts are much vaguer on the point), closing the scheme to future accrual would simply mean a change to your terms of employment. Provided the correct consultation processes were followed, there's no chance your employer could be forced into keeping the scheme open just for one disgruntled member!

Probably right, but I was never really expecting them to keep it open, more wondering if I should be entitled to some kind of compensation for the loss.  I’m not an employment law expert but if they change my terms of employment and I reject it, doesn’t that mean they are in breach of contract and should pay me some kind of compensation I.e. severance?  Obviously it’s a moot point now 

Unlikely. In practice if a change to a contractual term can't be agreed, then it's likely your employer will terminate your employment (giving the required notice period, but nothing more than that) and then offer you a new contract on the new terms, which you can accept or reject. 

Hmmm.  Interesting but doesn’t that then beg the question of why any company ever paid any redundancy pay?   They could simply tell all the people they are cutting their salary by 50% as a contract change and when the people inevitably reject  it they can just terminate their employment without paying any redundancy?

Marcon

Pat38493 said:

Marcon said:

Pat38493 said:

Marcon said:

Pat38493 said:

I tried to challenge my employer when they put the entire final salary scheme into deferment in 2008 on the basis that in my original 1992 employment contract, it said that I was entitled to be a member of a final salary pension scheme and even specified the % contributions that I needed to make and the final salary itself.

They told me that if refused to accept the changes, I was effectively choosing to leave the company (without severance).

I was thinking about hiring a solicitor to get some advice about it, but in the end I decided against it so I am not 100% sure if the company was correct or if they were just trying to scare me into not pursuing it.

You'd have lost. Even if you had a contractual entitlement to be a member of a final salary scheme (most contracts are much vaguer on the point), closing the scheme to future accrual would simply mean a change to your terms of employment. Provided the correct consultation processes were followed, there's no chance your employer could be forced into keeping the scheme open just for one disgruntled member!

Probably right, but I was never really expecting them to keep it open, more wondering if I should be entitled to some kind of compensation for the loss.  I’m not an employment law expert but if they change my terms of employment and I reject it, doesn’t that mean they are in breach of contract and should pay me some kind of compensation I.e. severance?  Obviously it’s a moot point now 

Unlikely. In practice if a change to a contractual term can't be agreed, then it's likely your employer will terminate your employment (giving the required notice period, but nothing more than that) and then offer you a new contract on the new terms, which you can accept or reject. 

Hmmm.  Interesting but doesn’t that then beg the question of why any company ever paid any redundancy pay?   They could simply tell all the people they are cutting their salary by 50% as a contract change and when the people inevitably reject  it they can just terminate their employment without paying any redundancy?

Even assuming that a 50% cut wouldn't reduce salaries to below the legal minimum wage, that sort of 'change' would guarantee a raft of constructive dismissal claims - normally an extremely difficult claim to bring successfully, but halving salaries would probably have a rather better rate of success!

Albermarle

Pat38493 said:

Marcon said:

Pat38493 said:

Marcon said:

Pat38493 said:

I tried to challenge my employer when they put the entire final salary scheme into deferment in 2008 on the basis that in my original 1992 employment contract, it said that I was entitled to be a member of a final salary pension scheme and even specified the % contributions that I needed to make and the final salary itself.

They told me that if refused to accept the changes, I was effectively choosing to leave the company (without severance).

I was thinking about hiring a solicitor to get some advice about it, but in the end I decided against it so I am not 100% sure if the company was correct or if they were just trying to scare me into not pursuing it.

You'd have lost. Even if you had a contractual entitlement to be a member of a final salary scheme (most contracts are much vaguer on the point), closing the scheme to future accrual would simply mean a change to your terms of employment. Provided the correct consultation processes were followed, there's no chance your employer could be forced into keeping the scheme open just for one disgruntled member!

Probably right, but I was never really expecting them to keep it open, more wondering if I should be entitled to some kind of compensation for the loss.  I’m not an employment law expert but if they change my terms of employment and I reject it, doesn’t that mean they are in breach of contract and should pay me some kind of compensation I.e. severance?  Obviously it’s a moot point now 

Unlikely. In practice if a change to a contractual term can't be agreed, then it's likely your employer will terminate your employment (giving the required notice period, but nothing more than that) and then offer you a new contract on the new terms, which you can accept or reject. 

Hmmm.  Interesting but doesn’t that then beg the question of why any company ever paid any redundancy pay?   They could simply tell all the people they are cutting their salary by 50% as a contract change and when the people inevitably reject  it they can just terminate their employment without paying any redundancy?

In my limited experience, many companies like to manage redundancies sensitively, as they do want the remaining staff to get disillusioned/demotivated/hating the company and thinking they may be next out of the door with only statutory redundancy pay.  Also some companies like to play fair in these situations ( not all obviously).

As far as 50% pay cuts, I do not think that would be a successful strategy for business success....