Pensions

Should RNR/RMR be able to accrue pensions for time served in unifor


  • Total voters
    736

Midas

Newbie
I know that this may be a little contentious but when is MOD going to start allowing us to accrue pensionable service against the time served with the RNR?

This happens in the US and as we are looking at:

1. Recruitment problems
2. Being called up a lot more (albeit you do get pensionable service here)

Surely this will help both issues......

I am not a legal bod but thought that employers had a legal obligation to offer basic pensions?
 

fish-head

Midshipman
I am afriad that this very unlikely. Don't like to refer to the 'other place' but...

TA link

It would appear the pension obligation doesn't stretch to the reserve forces.
 

McHammock

Lantern Swinger
If we start asking for pension, they WILL take away Bounty.
e.g. 28 days training each year - how little pension will that accrue ?
versus
Bounty - £1000+ tax free

No brainer - do not even think about pension
 

hammockhead

Lantern Swinger
McHammock said:
If we start asking for pension, they WILL take away Bounty.
e.g. 28 days training each year - how little pension will that accrue ?
versus
Bounty - £1000+ tax free

No brainer - do not even think about pension

Agreed. £1000 now must be worth about five times that when I retire.
 

Midas

Newbie
Fair one - I naturally agree with the bountly side of the issue! That said the yanks look after their reserves a lot more than we do (free college education) to name but one!

The recent high court ruling stipulated that we are known as "casual labour" - more like cheap labour. Thanks a lot for the link Fish-head, much appreciated.
 

PartTimer

War Hero
The bounty is an incentive to complete training, and a nice one at that. I don't think pension rights would.

You're right though Mida, US regulars and reserves get a lot more reward for their service, with golden handshakes etc. We're just not in the same league - and if we were we'd rapidly become unsubstainable because of wage costs.

One of the things that keeps reserves cheap and attractive to the tax payer is not having a pension. Once that is introduced then our economic benefit vs the regulars is much reduced.
 

Pieces

Newbie
I was talking to someone about this before and he told me that he had spoke to someone senior about it and was told that we should be putting our bounties into a private pension plan and if we choose not to then that is our problem. Booooo :(
 

Old_Hand

Lantern Swinger
I still serve in RNR and carry out duties with ratings from the USA. Apparently the US Reserves have to complete 20 years service to obtain a pension. If they carry out regular service then this also counts towards their 20 years.
 

Lurch

Badgeman
The last time this question was asked of the grown-ups the answer (as of Mid 2001) was that the Act of Parliament that gave part-time workers pension rights explicitly excluded the Reserve Forces. There was a newspaper article a while back about some TA's who were looking into a legal challenge to this exclusion. I've heard nothing since.
 

McHammock

Lantern Swinger
Lurch said:
The last time this question was asked of the grown-ups the answer (as of Mid 2001) was that the Act of Parliament that gave part-time workers pension rights explicitly excluded the Reserve Forces. There was a newspaper article a while back about some TA's who were looking into a legal challenge to this exclusion. I've heard nothing since.
See link from fish_head on 05 March (above)
 
fish-head said:
I am afriad that this very unlikely. Don't like to refer to the 'other place' but...

TA link

It would appear the pension obligation doesn't stretch to the reserve forces.

Ok Peops - legal eagle swooping to help here. The TA Major had taken the issue to the wrong court as I understand it. The matter being looked at is an employment one and would need to be taken through an employment tribunal as a claim for breach against the Equal Treatment Directive and Part Time Worker Regulations.

The legal argument is this;
1) The Treaty of Rome that the UK signed in 1970 to become part of the EEC (as was) contained an article 118. This article provided for equal treatment of citizens across the EEC by reason of gender and race.
2) The articles of the Treaty of Rome had to be enacted in to UK law.
3) The provisions of article 118 were enacted by the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts. Both these acts having superior legisaltion in the Treaty of Rome have to be compatible with the ToR, both in spirit and in wording. This is the essential conflict between continental and British law, as the continental law founded on the Napoleonic Code and as such is interpretive, in other words, the interpretation of the law is paramount and is fairly strictly defined. However, in the UK we have a purposive tradition built up common law with loads of wiggle room that looks at what the intent or spirit of the law was.
4) The Sex Discrimination Act was seen in the spirit that the ToR was thought to have meant. Originally, vast swathes of people were denied the protection of equal treatment under law purely because they worked part-time. However, as many cases have shown, the original interpretation of Parliament in 1976 was way off.
5) The majority of people who work part-time in the UK are women.
6) Therefore, any employment provision that excludes or treats part-timers less favourably than full time staff indirectly discriminates against the part-time staff.
7) Denying RNR personnel access to a stakeholder pension or access to the RN pension is open to claim on the basis that it discriminates against part time workers, the vast majority of whom in the UK are women. Ipso facto, the exclusion is indirect gender discrimination.

The claimant would only have to use the comparator of broad gender splits of part time and full time workers and not have to show the gender split in the reserve forces.

As to whether the bounty is pension, this is a sop and would have very little actual credible defence in law. The essential point was that reservists had been treated differently from regulars. Therefore, the RN would also have to fund the loss of the value to the pension fund for each indidivual had the reservists been paying in to the pension scheme. This would have to be calculated for all reservists from 1976 onwards. This is the real cost to the MoD - not allowing reservists to access pensions now, but in calculating and then paying back the lossed value to the pension. However, getting access relies on one person to take this on and be prepared to take it all the way to Strasbourg.
 

Latest Threads

New Posts

Top