I don't believe that should be the theory. The employer contributions were made in good faith, while the employee was in good standing with the company, in accordance with the contract of employment. So the employee has "earned" those employer contributions. The fact that they the employee was later dismissed doesn't change that.
Totally different. I have money invested in 2 former employer pension schemes, the money is mine and sits there slowly increasing in value and will continue to do so until I decide to do something with it. I know former NHS employees who left the NHS but left their pensions in the scheme and refuse to move the money elsewhere as the payout under that scheme will be far better than elsewhere. They can’t add to the funds but they can’t lose the, either, despite having been made redundant by the `NHS.
However, presumably you had a lump sum with which to purchase a pension, so you were not too badly affected and effectively you were not penalised.There's a key issue here that means we might be talking at cross-purposes - not all pension schemes are the same.
There's a key issue here that means we might be talking at cross-purposes - not all pension schemes are the same.
Most pensions these days are stakeholder rather than workplace (almost all of which are either closed to new entrants or have been converted to stakeholder). You can't get "thrown out" of a stakeholder pension since the contract is between the employee and the pension company.
For occupational/workplace pensions then the only acceptable resolution for someone who gets thrown out of the scheme would be for their employee contribution to be made available to transfer to a stakeholder pension. A agree that asking them to repay anything would be on questionable legal ground.
Yes, i am aware of an almost identical case though not in the rail industry. I don't think it is an uncommon practise.
What sort of offence are you alluding to?
The colleague that I had it happen to. Regularly made phone calls to Jamaica on the work mobile.
Your example assumes that all scheme members are no longer employed. In reality, scheme members are a mixture of the currently and formerly employed.
different as I think the police pension (like some other govt backed schemes eg civil service, but NOT local govt) is an 'unfunded' scheme - ie you do not pay into a 'pot' that is invested to / managed to create a fund from which defined benefit pensions are paid. I think those pensions (police etc I mean) are simply paid out of tax revenue. Obviously there is a formula based on service length that defines the pension paid out when you become entitled.
I think not. The point is that these schemes are 'collectivised' - the same as when a member of a scheme, with no dependents, dies in service and thus no pension to be paid out, the money is simply retained by the pension fund. The employer / TOC would not get it back.
Yes, these schemes typically track inflation (not wages) if you leave the employment but opt to leave your pension contributions in the fund until you are old enough to claim them.
Yes, good point - but the railway pension scheme AFAIK is workplace defined benefit scheme (as are most public sector schemes still - even if they may no longer be final salary related. Often now career avg. They are Defined Benefit Schemes, as opposed to Defined Contribution Schemes - the latter being a 'pension pot' that is only yours and your pension dependent on how that pot performs.There's a key issue here that means we might be talking at cross-purposes - not all pension schemes are the same.
Most pensions these days are stakeholder rather than workplace (almost all of which are either closed to new entrants or have been converted to stakeholder). You can't get "thrown out" of a stakeholder pension since the contract is between the employee and the pension company.
I useful link ref the LGPS (changes were introduced after some notable examples of high paying staff leaving but being entitled to full pension benefits even though they had been perceived to have done wrong) but reading ti indicates how rare this action actually is, and how difficult it is to make it happen in practice I would say).Staff misconduct and pension forfeiture
localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
This is specific to the local government pension scheme I don't know if it applies to other schemes but some employees in the rail industry (eg if you work for TfL) are subject to the local government pension scheme rules I think
there is nothing to repay as the employee has not recieved anything.
I don't think you are correct - the employee received pension contributions made by their employer into the defined benefit scheme. It is the ability (or otherwise) to reclaim them at the time or directly after the misdemeanor that is being discussed - NOT the ability to deny payment of pension when the employee (or former employee) reaches retirement age whether from deferred scheme membership or career long pension scheme membership - eg a 40 year qualifying period typical for a defined benefit final salary type scheme.
Perhaps not the best example to quote as he lost his NHS pension, according to this article.
It did take the better part of four years after conviction though, and it seems that his wife still got benefit of the monies that he had paid in.
Interesting - but actually in the example it does shed a bit more light on it - see this link - which shows that under the rules of his NHS pension even though, as you say, Mr Shipman lost his pension, his dependents (wife) remained entitled to elements of the NHS pension survivors benefits. Again all presumably down to the rules of the individual occupational pension scheme he was a member of ie the NHS scheme.
member.railwayspensions.co.uk
And if you read the article it then goes on to say :-
good post Tazi - and the govt has a wider interest in this too it is worth mentioning - because if employers could seize back occupational pensions the likelihood is that at least some of the employees concerned would have to fall back on means tested state pension benefits to make up their income in retirement - ie the taxpayer is picking up the cost of the outcome - which is usually a situation government would seek to avoid when drawing up relevant legislation.
I can't agree with that assertion, as it is something you have added. It is clearly stated that the employee does not even have to be found guilty of gross misconduct but can have resigned to avoid that happening. Gross misconduct is the most serious type of disciplinary offence that can be committed and covers criminal activity such as theft or fraud.
It says there has to be a "criminal or fraudulent act". Some cases of gross misconduct will fall into this category, but not all of them.
