Hubbabridge

I think the point is it is not a contractual entitlement. The pension scheme offered at the point you start employment is not required to be the same as the one you receive when you leave employment 30 years later. Having worked for an employer who has changed the scheme three times in the last 20 years, there is nothing you can contractually do about this. They have to consult but that is it; there is no legal right to a negotiation. At best you can hope for is that the accrued rights are maintained and that is what BA is doing.

strichener

It certainly is if it forms part of your employment contract. There are ways that the company can change these, including putting everyone on notice but they cannot unilaterally change an employment contract.

Waterhorse

What one company has got away with does not mean that it is not contractual. The fact that IAG has spent £500 on buying their own shares back to shore up the share price and to protect management share potions suggests they could fund the deficit and we are just being fed the company line rather than giving out the facts. Sure the scheme may well change but that does not mean we have to accept the companies version of the facts or cave in without trying to protect our retirement

IAMORGAN

Two thoughts:

1. This "unionised industry" you are talking of are real people, with names, houses, debts, kids and so on. We are talking about financing their retirement.

2. Two can play the "contractual" obligation / entitlement game though can't they? Most companies would presumably not react very well if their employees told them that they were no longer doing x, y or z task because it is not a contractual obligation and the employer should be grateful for the fact it had been done on a 'complimentary' / 'discretionary' / 'ex gratia' basis for the past 15 years.

You may have seen my view upthread that I don't necessarily see this as "evil BA" as it sounds like the existing scheme was genuinely unsustainable (and you can finger point at whose fault that is til the cows come home but it won't change the numbers), but I don't see why gratitude should come into it really.

I actually thought the internal email (if the numbers in it are right) was pretty candid and honest.

makin'miles

I think if BA tried to retroactively change their pension arrangements, staff would likely have a very strong case that their employment contracts are breached. If Sally worked for BA for 20 years, and then they unilaterally decided to recalculate her pension for years 0-20 on a defined contribution basis - leaving her with less at retirement - this would likely be found illegal (not to mention unethical).

However, BA don't appear to proposing this - instead, they're looking at changing the pension arrangements on a go-forward basis. So if Sally stays with BA for another ten years, when she retires her pension payment will be made of two parts: one through year 20 (based on the DB scheme) and a second for the final ten years (based on the DC scheme).

Unless the various unions have the defined benefit pension scheme codified into their contracts (or non-union individuals have done this directly), I'm not sure how there would be a breach of contract.

Nonetheless, I'd expect employees to fight (hard) to retain their DB pensions; I can't imagine this helping labour relations at the company.

Agent69

Are you certain of this? Does the BA contract of employment say that you will be entitled to be a member of a final salary pension scheme for the whole of the time that you are employed by BA?

Agent69

Exactly what Chris Evans thought when he found out that the BBC wanted to reduce his £2m a year pay package.

Silver Fox

And if it is not in a legally binding contract then this decision will affect you:

IBM defined benefit pension scheme changes were not made in bad faith, appeal court rules

The employer holds the whip hand even more firmly now with this.

strichener

What contract of employment lists any term as being "for the whole time that you are employed"? If you were to argue such a position then 99.9% of employers could stop paying wages based on employment contract wording, contracts of employment are by their very definition applicable to the employment. Bizarre.

phoneticduck

it will say you will be entitled to a pension. it won't specify beyond that. ex-civil servants now in privatised companies, in some cases do have rights that are preserved.

typically companies in that position wait till all those folks retire before making changes like this....

Agent69

You need to try to understand that there are 2 sets of criteria at work here.

Some parts of your remuneration package are contractual entitlements (such as salary), which cannot be removed without mutual consent, Other things are non contractual perks that can be withdrawn. The wording of your contract should make it clear which is which.

For example, the company I work for has a non contractual bonus scheme. The last few years it has been worth about 5% of gross salary, but the fact we have had the benefit of it over recent years doesn't mean that it will be there for ever.

craigthemif

I'd be curious to know what % of employees joined before 2003.

I wouldn't necessarily expect those BA employees already earning less and stuck with a DC pension being all that willing to strike in support of their colleagues.

So, labour strife? Perhaps. But it probably wouldn't be across the board.

Waterhorse

Most Captains are in NAPS - it would take a very small proportion of them to strike to completely shut down the airline, not so much labour strife as a complete stoppage..

Littlegirl

I just don't see what this has got to do with any of you.

Fair enough if a staff member had asked for your advice or asked your opinion but they haven't.

Fair enough if a strike was being called for but so far that has not yet happened.

Agent69

If NAPS was closed to new members 14 years ago then a significant % of employees (across all trades) must have come on board since then,