North Lanarkshire Update
Sarah Gilzean from HBJ Gateley has been in touch with some news about the ongoing pensions dispute with North Lanarkshire Council.
Apparently, the SPPA (Scottish Public Pensions Agency) has indicated that it is going seek legal advice from the Scottish Government Legal Directorate before confirming its decision over the pensions dispute with North Lanarkshire Council.
The dispute has been brought on behalf of clients of Action 4 Equality Scotland in North Lanarkshire and the SPPA is responsible for processing the appeal on behalf of Scottish Ministers.
The deadline for the SSPA to announce a decision is 13 May 2016, i.e. the week after the Scottish Parliament elections, so those involved in the dispute should make a point of raising the issue with the candidates in the Holyrood elections and contacting also contacting their local Westminster MPs.
Not least because for the individuals involved the stakes are highly significant - see posts below from the blog site archive.
I wrote recently about the significance of equal pay settlements being processed on a 'pensionable basis'.
Now this does not apply to everyone, only to people who retired before 2012, but the benefits are potentially considerable.
So here are a few examples to illustrate the difference that a pensions based settlement would make to a person's lump sum and annual pension - along with an indication of the likely cost.
The only health warning is that these are 'broad brush' examples and that individual outcomes would vary depending on a person's length of pensionable service, hours of work and the amount of their equal pay settlement.
If any A4ES clients would like more detailed information about their individual situation, please contact Karl in the Action 4 Equality Scotland office.
Here are contact details for Action 4 Equality Scotland - including a new telephone number .
Phone: 0131 659 9958
HBJ Gateley are the lawyers representing A4ES clients in the ongoing dispute with North Lanarkshire Council over pensions and equal pay - and they've done a great job if you ask me, in setting out the employees' case in a formal appeal to Scottish Ministers which is now underway.
Here's an extract of the appeal letter which explains the scale of the financial loss being suffered by former NLC employees (mainly women) who are not being allowed by the Council to retire on the same basis as their male colleagues doing traditional jobs, such as refuse workers and gardeners.
The dispute has been brought on behalf of clients of Action 4 Equality Scotland in North Lanarkshire and the SPPA is responsible for processing the appeal on behalf of Scottish Ministers.
The deadline for the SSPA to announce a decision is 13 May 2016, i.e. the week after the Scottish Parliament elections, so those involved in the dispute should make a point of raising the issue with the candidates in the Holyrood elections and contacting also contacting their local Westminster MPs.
Not least because for the individuals involved the stakes are highly significant - see posts below from the blog site archive.
North Lanarkshire Update (20 March 2016)
I wrote recently about the significance of equal pay settlements being processed on a 'pensionable basis'.
Now this does not apply to everyone, only to people who retired before 2012, but the benefits are potentially considerable.
So here are a few examples to illustrate the difference that a pensions based settlement would make to a person's lump sum and annual pension - along with an indication of the likely cost.
The only health warning is that these are 'broad brush' examples and that individual outcomes would vary depending on a person's length of pensionable service, hours of work and the amount of their equal pay settlement.
Based on a £15,000 Annual Salary
|
Based on a £15,000 salary with a £15,000 settlement over 5 years.
| ||||||||
Category
|
Number of years in Pension
|
Current Pension Entitlement per Year
|
Current Standard Tax Free Lump sum
|
Total Cost for making settlement Pensionable
|
Pension per Year with Settlement
|
Lump Sum Payment with Settlement
|
Increase in Pension Per Year
|
Increase in Tax Free Lump Sum
|
Life Time Benefit for the cost of £825
|
| Example 1 |
10
|
£2,500
|
£5,625
|
£825
|
£3,000
|
£6,750
|
£500
|
£1,125
|
£12,125
|
| Example 2 |
20
|
£5,000
|
£11,250
|
£825
|
£6,000
|
£13,500
|
£1,000
|
£2,250
|
£24,250
|
| Example 3 |
30
|
£7,500
|
£16,875
|
£825
|
£9,000
|
£20,250
|
£1,500
|
£3,375
|
£36,375
|
If any A4ES clients would like more detailed information about their individual situation, please contact Karl in the Action 4 Equality Scotland office.
Action 4 Equality Scotland
Here are contact details for Action 4 Equality Scotland - including a new telephone number .
Action 4 Equality Scotland
10 York Place
Edinburgh
EH1 3EP
Email: enquiries@action4equality.co.uk
10 York Place
Edinburgh
EH1 3EP
Email: enquiries@action4equality.co.uk
Pensions and Equal Pay (18 March 2016)
Here's an extract of the appeal letter which explains the scale of the financial loss being suffered by former NLC employees (mainly women) who are not being allowed by the Council to retire on the same basis as their male colleagues doing traditional jobs, such as refuse workers and gardeners.
"21 The following example illustrates the scale of the loss to the Appellants:
"Mrs A has been in service for 20 years and has made a contribution to her pension for the full period of her employment. Prior to the settlement offer Mrs A received £3,838 pension per year with a non-taxable lump sum payment of £11,512. After taking into account the additional earnings that Mrs A received in the settlement and contributing £960 in additional contributions, Mrs A would receive an increased pension of £5,375.00 per year with a non-taxable lump sum payment of £16,125. Mrs A would therefore have a gain of £1,537 extra in her pension per year and an additional £4,613 as a lump sum. Over her lifetime Mrs A would stand to gain an additional £43,800 from her increased pension entitlement."
I can't even begin to understand how Labour-run North Lanarkshire can claim to be an equal opportunities employer when the Council is arguing that a retiring woman worker can be treated so much less favourably than a comparable male employee.
In fact, it's a complete disgrace if you ask me and I only hope that Scottish Ministers have the sense to uphold the appeal from A4ES clients.
I'll be writing shortly to all MSPs and MPs in North Lanarkshire with a copy of the appeal letter and will be urging them to support their local constituents by making representations to the Scottish Government.
"Mrs A has been in service for 20 years and has made a contribution to her pension for the full period of her employment. Prior to the settlement offer Mrs A received £3,838 pension per year with a non-taxable lump sum payment of £11,512. After taking into account the additional earnings that Mrs A received in the settlement and contributing £960 in additional contributions, Mrs A would receive an increased pension of £5,375.00 per year with a non-taxable lump sum payment of £16,125. Mrs A would therefore have a gain of £1,537 extra in her pension per year and an additional £4,613 as a lump sum. Over her lifetime Mrs A would stand to gain an additional £43,800 from her increased pension entitlement."
I can't even begin to understand how Labour-run North Lanarkshire can claim to be an equal opportunities employer when the Council is arguing that a retiring woman worker can be treated so much less favourably than a comparable male employee.
In fact, it's a complete disgrace if you ask me and I only hope that Scottish Ministers have the sense to uphold the appeal from A4ES clients.
I'll be writing shortly to all MSPs and MPs in North Lanarkshire with a copy of the appeal letter and will be urging them to support their local constituents by making representations to the Scottish Government.
