" "

Employers can renege on pension benefits says court

27 Sep 2017
by

Appeal judges have ruled that a top company can slash its pension costs despite objections from employees.

The Court of Appeal, in IBM UK -V- Dalgleish, backed the company’s plea that the High Court should not have found it breached its duties as an employer.

In 2014, the High Court decision turned on employment law that regards mutual trust and confidence between employee and employer as an implied part of an employee’s contract.

Judges had agreed with employees that when IBM changed its pension scheme they broke a ‘reasonable expectation’ – based on previous statements that they would continue with their initial scheme. Judges also concluded that the company’s financial situation did not force IBM to make the change.

IBM made changes to ‘discretionary’ parts of its pension scheme so that its costs in the future could be reduced. Managers wanted to exclude future salary increases from the pensionable pay used to work out its defined benefits. It also terminated future increases to the defined benefits upon retirement as well as enhanced early retirement.

Reason over trust

But appeal judges ruled that employees were being too emotional and the High Court put too much emphasis on them being disappointed because their expectations were not met.

Appeal judges declared that a rational approach was required and looked at whether other issues should have been taken into account at the High Court. The bottom line was that IBM had acted rationally when they made their decision and that meant that there was no breach of mutual trust and confidence.

However, whilst the employer was permitted to change the discretionary benefits available under the pension scheme, they were locked into the contractual commitments they made under the scheme. Discretionary benefits gave the employer some leeway but the contractual benefits were set in stone.

The lesson for the employer was: if you act on your discretionary powers you must act reasonably. In this case, the Appeal Court found IBM acted with reason and justification.

The High Court decision was regarded as a landmark in pensions cases but the employees could still go to the Supreme Court.

Photo credit: Howard Lake

Tagged

business employees employers employment law human resources legal

Related News Stories

Executive faced a ruined career after botched sacking

Executive faced a ruined career after botched sacking

An advanced mental health practitioner was recently awarded over £60,000 after he was sacked without a fair process. An employment…

Read more
CBI scandal: what if your employee is accused of a serious crime?

CBI scandal: what if your employee is accused of a serious crime?

The CBI has been rocked by accusations of rape and sexual misconduct. With its reputation in tatters, members leaving by…

Read more
F-words at work – OK, but saying ‘baldie’ – not

F-words at work – OK, but saying ‘baldie’ – not

Swearing at work was ruled acceptable by one employment tribunal judge, while another gave out £71,000 in compensation when a…

Read more
Employer punished for unfair sex assault dismissal

Employer punished for unfair sex assault dismissal

Government agency bosses used a flawed procedure when firing a top foreign envoy for a sexual harassment accusation. The British…

Read more
Employers face legal traps over home working

Employers face legal traps over home working

Employers risk making poor and costly decisions in response to employees asking to work from their homes. Two cases have…

Read more
Employers are punished for sacking bad workers

Employers are punished for sacking bad workers

A judge slapped down an employer who failed to follow a fair procedure when sacking a nurse for being racist.…

Read more
Managers’ confused performance assessment leads to big payout

Managers’ confused performance assessment leads to big payout

A well-known clothes store's flawed promotion and assessment process landed them with a £96,208 judgement at an employment tribunal. Bristol…

Read more
Frustrated manager’s decision leads to unfair dismissal

Frustrated manager’s decision leads to unfair dismissal

An employer lost an unfair dismissal case after summarily sacking an employee rather than go through a fair procedure. London…

Read more
Protected conversations expedite dismissals

Protected conversations expedite dismissals

The government has increased the scope for employers to sack employees without the threat of court cases. The new law…

Read more
Tesco gets burned by its fire and rehire tactics

Tesco gets burned by its fire and rehire tactics

A high street giant’s attempt to cut their staff bill was slapped down recently due to employment law. The High…

Read more
Tribunal defends  cross-dressing engineer

Tribunal defends cross-dressing engineer

A landmark court ruling has boosted employment lawyers’ chances of protecting ‘sex change’ workers from harassment and unfair dismissal. Birmingham…

Read more
Government demands employees return to work  – but not just yet

Government demands employees return to work – but not just yet

Government have changed their advice on telling employees to return to the workplace due to a spike in virus infections.…

Read more
Job redundancy or unfair dismissal

Job redundancy or unfair dismissal

The looming end to the government’s job subsidies in November will lead to some cynical bosses using redundancy to victimise…

Read more
Sickness sacking is valid without medical expertise

Sickness sacking is valid without medical expertise

A rail company did not need extensive medical evidence to sack an employee for being too sick to work. Employment…

Read more
Court upholds sacking over a Christmas overtime row

Court upholds sacking over a Christmas overtime row

An employment tribunal in November 2016 decided that a company fairly dismissed a worker when her refusal to do overtime…

Read more
Good employer loses appeal in migrant right to work case

Good employer loses appeal in migrant right to work case

Foreign workers have a right to appeal if they face dismissal over doubts about their UK residency status, appeal judges…

Read more
Jaw-jaw before war-war

Jaw-jaw before war-war

New legislation compels people in a workplace dispute to talk before going into legal battle in a court. Whether they…

Read more
Sharma Solicitors is Regulated by Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA Number: 403199)