Without prejudice to terms of my employment
Options
helmie
Posts: 11 Forumite
I am on a fixed term contract that is governed by rules and regulations in separate documents.
The employer want to make a change to the pension scheme which means any employee who does not make it to 5 years, loses any employer contribution that were nominally put towards pension, currently worth about 15% of my package if they leave before 5 years are up. As I cannot control if I am offered extensions, and the policy is becoming more and more not to extend to make sure nobody is critical, I am therefor very likely to be forced out before the five year point and lose this nominal employer contribution.
My actual contract says they can change the rulebook and " it will be applicable to me without prejudice to my terms of appointment''.
I dont know what this means - it seems pretty prejudical to me if currently I acquire additional employer contributions, and soon I will not, but I dont know what this means legally.
Does this mean they have to come to a deal with me if they make the terms worse - or can they do what they like'?
Due to the nature of the job and its location they have me over a barrel, I would have been much less likely to accept under the new terms, but now I have made significant personal arrangements and costs to take the new position, walking away is not an easy option.
The employer want to make a change to the pension scheme which means any employee who does not make it to 5 years, loses any employer contribution that were nominally put towards pension, currently worth about 15% of my package if they leave before 5 years are up. As I cannot control if I am offered extensions, and the policy is becoming more and more not to extend to make sure nobody is critical, I am therefor very likely to be forced out before the five year point and lose this nominal employer contribution.
My actual contract says they can change the rulebook and " it will be applicable to me without prejudice to my terms of appointment''.
I dont know what this means - it seems pretty prejudical to me if currently I acquire additional employer contributions, and soon I will not, but I dont know what this means legally.
Does this mean they have to come to a deal with me if they make the terms worse - or can they do what they like'?
Due to the nature of the job and its location they have me over a barrel, I would have been much less likely to accept under the new terms, but now I have made significant personal arrangements and costs to take the new position, walking away is not an easy option.
0
Comments
-
I don't understand how this would work.
Once money has been paid into your pension scheme, it is held by the pension scheme trustees in your name.
I don't see how the employer could get that money back even if it wanted to.
Unless the employer is trying to say that it will deduct an equivalent amount from your final salary?0 -
At the moment we have a money purchase type scheme, the employer wants to go to a final salary type scheme. Normally this is thought of as a good thing - but they also want to force people on short term contracts into it - where it will be a considerable loss of overall renumeration.
In a final salary arrangement the money does not go into your personal pot, it goes into a pooled social fund, where rights of eventual access are governed by rules. Instead of giving money to me, they will give it to the fund. If I could work here for 15+ years it would be a great scheme, and many people here are in that situation, however I have an 80% chance of losing out and subsidising the long termers as you earn no rights to payouts until you have worked 5 years.0 -
I'd check whether the scheme is compliant with current statutory requirements.0
-
At the moment we have a money purchase type scheme, the employer wants to go to a final salary type scheme. Normally this is thought of as a good thing - but they also want to force people on short term contracts into it - where it will be a considerable loss of overall renumeration.
In a final salary arrangement the money does not go into your personal pot, it goes into a pooled social fund, where rights of eventual access are governed by rules. Instead of giving money to me, they will give it to the fund. If I could work here for 15+ years it would be a great scheme, and many people here are in that situation, however I have an 80% chance of losing out and subsidising the long termers as you earn no rights to payouts until you have worked 5 years.
The phrase here is 'baloney'. Five year vesting periods went out with the ark (well, not quite) and they certainly can't enforce any such provision, final salary or otherwise. If you've been a member of a defined benefit pension scheme for at least two years, you must be given the option to leave your benefits in the scheme.
You may (but don't have to be) offered this option if you've been a member for less than two years. If you don't have this option, you are entitled to transfer out a cash amount (representing the benefits you have built up) to another pension scheme, albeit within fairly tight timeframes. Otherwise, if the scheme rules permit, you may be able to take a refund of your own personal contributions - not a great idea, because you don't get any benefit from what the employer has contributed.
There's also the little matter of auto-enrolment regulations, which your employer is either clueless about or deliberately flouting. Either way, it doesn't wash.0 -
I should have said, its an international organisation so though I am employed from the UK, it may not be subject to UK law. Its a great scheme if you have multiple wives etc, but not for me.
I was really wondering what the "without prejudice to terms of employment" bit meant legally.0 -
If you are employed in the UK, UK law applies to your employment contract.
This will include the employer's legal obligation to provide access to a pension scheme.
What the employer is offering doesn't sound compliant to me, though hopefully someone with more knowledge of pensions law can confirm.
'without prejudice to terms of employment' means that it does not affect the other terms of your appointment, i.e. the rulebook does not override your employment contract.0 -
OK thanks, looks like I am a bit screwed then as pension contributions are defined in the rule book and not the contract.
However the contract does say they will make deductions into the old scheme and presumably needs ameneded to say deductions to the new scheme. That only effects how my own contributions would work though and not the employers bit.0 -
I should have said, its an international organisation so though I am employed from the UK, it may not be subject to UK law. Its a great scheme if you have multiple wives etc, but not for me.
Ah - that could change things! Are you on secondment or are you on a local (i.e. overseas) contract?0 -
It is overseas. They have me over a barrel, once I have moved and signed a year's accommodation rental then I can hardly flounce off. It depends how many of us are prepared to raise a stink.
Probably for most people it is a good thing slightly better than before, but since it is the same size of eventual cake, just cut differently, it is off the backs of the minority who are getting screwed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards