supply chain pay offs

[WARDY]

Just got info yesterday about a colleague in supply chain who has just turned 65 and is fit enough to work on for a few years yet, he has over 20 years service and who was expecting the normal 104 weeks wages to be offered if he decided to leave, has been informed by unit manager that he will get 15 months wages instead of 24 months because he loses a month for every month after he reached 64 and a half. That means he will lose out on 9 months pay if the redundancies go ahead in february, what a con, why should it matter if you are 40, 50, 60 or 70 and have given the company all that service. Shoul;d discrimination come into it regarding age with a long service, if anyone has any info about similar dealings or think that the union can step in to stop this discrimination please let me know, as me myself, will be hitting the same scenario shortly.

[Snaggletooth]

Just got info yesterday about a colleague in supply chain who has just turned 65 and is fit enough to work on for a few years yet, he has over 20 years service and who was expecting the normal 104 weeks wages to be offered if he decided to leave, has been informed by unit manager that he will get 15 months wages instead of 24 months because he loses a month for every month after he reached 64 and a half. That means he will lose out on 9 months pay if the redundancies go ahead in february, what a con, why should it matter if you are 40, 50, 60 or 70 and have given the company all that service. Shoul;d discrimination come into it regarding age with a long service, if anyone has any info about similar dealings or think that the union can step in to stop this discrimination please let me know, as me myself, will be hitting the same scenario shortly.

I've never worked in Supply Chain, but a year or two ago I was working out prospective redundancy terms for some of my team, one of whom was over 60… One complication is pension rights, not just on age and length of service but which of the five pension schemes the employee is in (or, indeed, not in the pension scheme at all). There will be some aspect of the lump sum taking a hit in exchange for having the pension topped up on leaving, which would actually be to the employee's advantage (probably). This gets really complicated and I made mistakes, it's always best to get the official illustration. The employee should get two weeks from receiving the official illustration until the have to accept or decline the offer.

[WARDY]

thanks snagglepuss, this guy i know for a fact took his iump sum and pension at 50 so do you think his pension will increase, all this helps me with my thoughts as i am nearly in the same position

[WARDY]

sorry got my pussey and tooth mixed up so thanks again snaggletooth

[Snaggletooth]

Wardy, again this might be differences between Supply Chain and Crown, so take it with a pinch of salt…

A few years ago, we used to allow people to take early retirement at 50, and they would get an appropriate sum if one came with their pension plan. It happened to somebody in my old team. In his case, he was in pension plan A, which definitely had a lump sum, but I don't think that later plans had lump sums upon retirement. Also, I'm pretty sure that, in Crowns, the minimum age for early retirement had moved back to 55 when we were discussing these things early last year.

[Chilli pepper]

Hi Wardy , just read your post from earlier this month I too want to take VR at 58 with 27 yrs service I was expecting 2 yrs pay but sadly this is not the case I am currently waiting for an offer but after speaking to hr looks like being 6 months pay and enhanced pension but if I opted out of pension I would get 2 yrs money ,the advice given was to see what offer they made if it wasn't enough reply saying you want to opt out of pension with immediate effect and it would be re calculated at 2 yrs pay ,maybe worth considering .

[Snaggletooth]

Hi Wardy , just read your post from earlier this month I too want to take VR at 58 with 27 yrs service I was expecting 2 yrs pay but sadly this is not the case I am currently waiting for an offer but after speaking to hr looks like being 6 months pay and enhanced pension but if I opted out of pension I would get 2 yrs money ,the advice given was to see what offer they made if it wasn't enough reply saying you want to opt out of pension with immediate effect and it would be re calculated at 2 yrs pay ,maybe worth considering .

Wow. I would get financial advice before dropping the pension for the lump sum, that could potentially lose you a lot of cash in the long run.

[Chilli pepper]

Having taken my first pension at 55 I still pay into the latest pension the defined pension which is not worth much so I am waiting to see what the offer is it still may be worth taking the two years pay .

[WARDY]

hi guys, me personally speaking, i think this must come under the discrimination scenario. what does it matter whether someone takes an early pension /lump sum, whether he is later on in years, etc., the point is and should be that anyone with 20 years service and over surely deserve two years wages,without any money being nibbled off them and making the package less attractive, hopefully the union can get in on this and myself and anyone else in this category get their back money, bonus, and full two years wages which surely is entitled to us.

[WARDY]

just heard from a colleague that everything seems agreed and it has to be completed within a 12 week period to qualify for a £1,400 lump sum payment, that means if it stretches on till end of march [b4 end of financial year in april] then the two years wages which was being deducted a months pay for every month after reaching sixty four and a half will be severely dented and guys will now be getting probably only 1 years wages on evr what a con for a guy to be given after spending most of his working time with royal mail [now post office counters] a paltry years wages

[baldrick]

It used to be the case in Royal Mail that a month's MTSF Redundancy payment was deducted for every month you stayed on over 64.5 years of age, but as I understand it this was scrapped when the statutory retirement age (65) was abolished.

[WARDY]

thanks for that baldrick, do you think that since post office has now split from royal mail then terms could be different or hopefully the agreement which was with royal mail before we split with them might carry on with supply chain because there is a lot of money at stake here not only for myself but others in near enough the same scenario, will be contacting the union regarding this and thanks for giving us a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel

[baldrick]

I would have thought the Post Office terms would be the same as Royal Mail's - MTSF. As far as I know these terms were the same before RM was split from PO and privatised. You should check into it.

Don't take this as 100% certain, but I think this is the case.

[baldrick]

I might have this wrong, just having a look at the MTSF agreement now. Will get back.

[baldrick]

I've had a look through the MTSF2 agreement in the downloads section, and there doesn't seem to be anything in it about VR payment being reduced after 64.5. The Age Retention section has been removed. I think this might be because of the Default Retirement Age being scrapped on 1/10/2011, but again I'm not sure.
I hope I haven't been raising your hopes unnecessarily, but I think you should check with CWU about this. I wouldn't have thought that the VR offers would be wrong though.