Union Legal Action Over Pension ?

[rockytony67]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me if the union has thought about legal action against RM and the Pension trusties, on the pension plan I received for the year 1999-2000 it states under the title Merger Of the Schemes

On April 2000 POSSS merged with the post office pension scheme
(POPS). Independent sub-committees of the Trustee Broad, each
advised by independent actuaries and lawyers, considered all the
issues and both sub-committees recommended that the Trustee
should agree to the merger. All employee members, pensioners
and deferred pensioners of the scheme were sent a communication
in February which explained the implications of the merger. NO
BENEFITS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE MERGER.


Now RM tell us that the only way to save the scheme is close it to new members, at the time of the merger POSSS was a closed scheme, I as a member was not asked if I wanted the scheme to be opened, I was not giving a vote on the subject of the merger, we as members of POSSS were the only ones paying any money into it(RM had been taking a pension holiday for about 12 years) and yet we were the only ones not asked.

After the merger of the two schemes RM stated taking a pension holiday in the combined scheme, were before they were only able to in POSSS not POPS, after 5 years low and behold both schemes are skint(according to them) if this is not a case of misuse of pension funds I don't know what is, so please can some one tell me why we are not perusing them in the courts.

Surely we must have a case on the opening of a closed scheme and giving there word in writing that it will make no difference to the scheme, also of there use of a surplus in one scheme to take a pension holiday in a different one.

Remember all documentation concerning the merger said that it will make no difference to anyone's pension, NOT THAT IT WILL ALL CHANGE IN APRIL 2008 your thoughts please

[k979aaa]

I was wondering if anyone can tell me if the union has thought about legal action against RM and the Pension trusties, on the pension plan I received for the year 1999-2000 it states under the title Merger Of the Schemes

On April 2000 POSSS merged with the post office pension scheme
(POPS). Independent sub-committees of the Trustee Broad, each
advised by independent actuaries and lawyers, considered all the
issues and both sub-committees recommended that the Trustee
should agree to the merger. All employee members, pensioners
and deferred pensioners of the scheme were sent a communication
in February which explained the implications of the merger. NO
BENEFITS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE MERGER.


Now RM tell us that the only way to save the scheme is close it to new members, at the time of the merger POSSS was a closed scheme, I as a member was not asked if I wanted the scheme to be opened, I was not giving a vote on the subject of the merger, we as members of POSSS were the only ones paying any money into it(RM had been taking a pension holiday for about 12 years) and yet we were the only ones not asked.

After the merger of the two schemes RM stated taking a pension holiday in the combined scheme, were before they were only able to in POSSS not POPS, after 5 years low and behold both schemes are skint(according to them) if this is not a case of misuse of pension funds I don't know what is, so please can some one tell me why we are not perusing them in the courts.

Surely we must have a case on the opening of a closed scheme and giving there word in writing that it will make no difference to the scheme, also of there use of a surplus in one scheme to take a pension holiday in a different one.

Remember all documentation concerning the merger said that it will make no difference to anyone's pension, NOT THAT IT WILL ALL CHANGE IN APRIL 2008 your thoughts please

Well being a union member and a payee into the scheem for so many year's!. I WOULD SAY IF THE UNION HAVE NOT HAD THIER (AND OUR) LEGAL DEPARTMENT ON THIS BEFORE IT IS A DAMN DISGRACE!. BUT I THINK THEY HAVE AND NOW WE WILL ALL HAVE TO FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHT'S!.

[rockytony67]

Yes K979aaa but what is it? and why have the union not put out a chronological history of what has happened to the pension scheme, so the members can see in black and white what has gone on.

[k979aaa]

Yes K979aaa but what is it? and why have the union not put out a chronological history of what has happened to the pension scheme, so the members can see in black and white what has gone on.

While i agree this would help our case!. I still think we will have to fight for it and some lack moral fibre but not for the most part!. FOR I HAVE HEARD MANY AND THIER PASSION IS JUST AS STRONG AS MINE FOR FIGHT IS NOW INEVITABLE!. IF FIGHT WE MUST THEN WE SHALL AND FEEL ALL THE BETTER FOR IT FOR WE HAVE SHOWN WE HAVE MORAL FIBRE!.

[Night Tonic]

Seems a good one to fight for. Me, I'm going to fight against the annual inclusion of September. Every year that damned month comes round and I maintain (along with my brothers and sisters) that the month of September should be ousted from the calendar. If it means a strike then so be it. Even if I lose on the removal of September, I can put my hand on my heart and know I've stood up for what I believe in....

Mind you, fact no one would give a fig is irrelevant :)

[rockytony67]

The problem is that I don't see how people can make an informed decision on the consultative ballot when, most people haven't got a clue about the history of the pension scheme and the changes to it, and what the legal position is as regards those changes.

[Night Tonic]

Good point but as far as showing strength, by far the overiding thought will be "whats the point - it will happen any way" and even if every one of us went on strike (which I doubt) who would shore up the pension? Sorting operations are closing, post offices going. We're being slimmed down. Theres not a cat in hells chance that the goverment will intervene. We're caught by the proverbials - we strike, more business goes and so on.

[rockytony67]

But why would we need to strike if we had a case in a court of law, until we are told were we stand how will we know?

[BELIAL]

Good point but as far as showing strength, by far the overiding thought will be "whats the point - it will happen any way" and even if every one of us went on strike (which I doubt) who would shore up the pension? Sorting operations are closing, post offices going. We're being slimmed down. Theres not a cat in hells chance that the goverment will intervene. We're caught by the proverbials - we strike, more business goes and so on.

You really are Adams ideal postal worker,if only all had your attitude his life would be so easy

[Night Tonic]

Don't be ridiculous. The last ballot we had made it very clear the direction we were headed in. In the end it came down to that final vote and if it was a yes, it was a yes. It doesn't matter how much you stamp your feet, if the majority won't agree, we're fooked. Theres a LOT to be said for determination and commitment when you think something is fundamentally wrong but just being right does not mean an automatic ticket to victory - as we've already found.

[BELIAL]

Don't be ridiculous. The last ballot we had made it very clear the direction we were headed in. In the end it came down to that final vote and if it was a yes, it was a yes. It doesn't matter how much you stamp your feet, if the majority won't agree, we're fooked. Theres a LOT to be said for determination and commitment when you think something is fundamentally wrong but just being right does not mean an automatic ticket to victory - as we've already found.

Once again you prove my point ,What Adam would give for a workforce composed of defeatist rollover merchants.

What a patronising tone you adopt, I think most people are by now aware of the last ballot result,and you can spit and snarl your petty insults all you like ,but it will not distract readers from your pathetic throw in the towel,all is lost ,rhetoric.
Unless you are mystic Meg incognito I don't see how you can confidently predict the result of the next ballot.

I'm just thankfull it was Churchill as PM after Dunkirk and not someone with your level of resolve

[rockytony67]

All I want to know is what the legal position is as regards the pension changes, not you shouldn't have voted for or against the deal, or my k#nb is bigger then yours, come on people this is major issue. The deal was voted in, END OF STORY it doesnt matter if I like it or you like it, the deal is what the membership voted for, if people are not happy with the deal then they can vote out those they hold responsible.

[BELIAL]

All I want to know is what the legal position is as regards the pension changes, not you shouldn't have voted for or against the deal, or my k#nb is bigger then yours, come on people this is major issue. The deal was voted in, END OF STORY it doesnt matter if I like it or you like it, the deal is what the membership voted for, if people are not happy with the deal then they can vote out those they hold responsible.

Don't know? But given the CWU track record in seeking to have the law enforced,i.e. the illegal use of agency labour in the last dispute, no. of prosecutions = 0 , would legality have any bearing?

[TrueBlueTerrier]

All I want to know is what the legal position is as regards the pension changes, not you shouldn't have voted for or against the deal, or my k#nb is bigger then yours, come on people this is major issue. The deal was voted in, END OF STORY it doesnt matter if I like it or you like it, the deal is what the membership voted for, if people are not happy with the deal then they can vote out those they hold responsible.

Don't know? But given the CWU track record in seeking to have the law enforced,i.e. the illegal use of agency labour in the last dispute, no. of prosecutions = 0 , would legality have any bearing?

There was 1 legal case but RM one that one and we could not strike for that day

[BELIAL]

All I want to know is what the legal position is as regards the pension changes, not you shouldn't have voted for or against the deal, or my k#nb is bigger then yours, come on people this is major issue. The deal was voted in, END OF STORY it doesnt matter if I like it or you like it, the deal is what the membership voted for, if people are not happy with the deal then they can vote out those they hold responsible.

Don't know? But given the CWU track record in seeking to have the law enforced,i.e. the illegal use of agency labour in the last dispute, no. of prosecutions = 0 , would legality have any bearing?

There was 1 legal case but RM one that one and we could not strike for that day

Yes ,did'nt do much to restore my faith in the legal system,as I recall CWU was required to inform RM of the exact no. to take IA. Perhaps striking is now illegal?