A Look Back at the Week that Was: This week – The value of references

Last week ACAS published new guidance on giving references. Most of its content will be of little surprise to HR professionals, the guidance covering when a reference must be given (generally no positive obligation to do so) and what it should say (it must be true, accurate and fair). Whilst there are legally tricky issues arising with references (for example when does an omission become misleading and what impact does GDPR have), in this piece I want to look at the trend towards providing only very basic – “tombstone” – references.

My clients tell me that if they see a reference now which states anything more than just job title and dates of employment then alarm bells start ringing that the reference must be an agreed one being given under a Settlement Agreement.  This seems such an indictment of modern society – that we’re so scared of being sued for saying something that is proven to be wrong that we’d rather not say anything very much at all, and that we’d only say something positive about a departing employee if we had to.  Whilst I am a lawyer and therefore might be thought to revel in the benefits of an increasingly litigious population, I genuinely don’t think that is a good place for society to be – but I do sometimes have to caution the more ‘exuberant’ of my clients to be sure that they can back up the description they are giving of someone in case it is used against them down the line.

What I don’t see though is how much informal sharing of additional information about candidates goes on behind the scenes. Whether, HR to HR, further details about for example attendance or disciplinary records are disclosed – or subtle comments and tone used to hint that the prospective employer should be careful. The difficulty for the prospective employer though is how it can withdraw a job offer if such information comes to its attention and causes concern.

That is because one consequence of the increased use of tombstone references is the inevitable lowering of the threshold of what amounts to a “satisfactory” reference – receipt of “satisfactory” references usually forming part of a conditional offer of employment.  If simple corroboration of what a candidate has said about their employment dates and job title is enough to satisfy the conditionality of a job offer then the ability to withdraw an offer because of surreptitiously gained additional information, without disclosing the existence of it, becomes increasingly difficult.

Is the next step just to abandon the reference-checking process altogether?  What value is it actually adding to the recruitment process?  A candidate could prove their previous job title and dates of employment to a prospective employer through paperwork.   HR teams could save the admin headache of chasing after reference requests which have not been replied to.  Because ultimately prospective employers should stand behind their own judgement about whether to offer someone a job or not – and if that judgement proves wrong (as sometimes it will), the probationary process provides the tool to manage that rather than looking to see if a third party can be held responsible.

Finally, for anyone who does check out the ACAS guidance for themselves, I do just want to flag one point that I think could be misinterpreted. ACAS say that an individual can make a request for a copy of a reference to the author of it; the implication is that the author ought then to provide it. Under the old DPA regime there was actually a specific exemption which meant that the author of a reference did not have to provide it to the subject, however it permitted a request to be made of the recipient and they would have to decide whether to disclose or not.  Under GDPR and the DPA 2018, personal data can be withheld by either the provider or the recipient where it relates to a confidential reference.  Employers would be wise to double-check the small print in their reference templates to make sure that it clearly states that the reference is confidential, although if it’s only a tombstone reference then there ought not to be any issue in disclosing it anyway.

Kirsty Thompson, Partner, works within Devonshires Employment & Pensions Team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

Refusal to postpone a disciplinary hearing made dismissal unfair

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has held an employee was unfairly dismissed when her employer refused to postpone a disciplinary hearing to allow her union representative to attend.

Background

Mrs Smith had been an employee of Talon Engineering Limited (Talon) for 21 years.  She was suspended whilst Talon investigated allegations of gross misconduct including that she had sent unprofessional emails to a key contact of the business.  The first disciplinary hearing that was scheduled was postponed due to Mrs Smith being ill and then having a period of annual leave.  Mrs Smith’s union representative was not available on the new date and emailed Talon requesting the hearing be postponed.  He offered up 3 dates when he would be available, all of which were more than 5 working days after the re-arranged hearing date.

Talon refused to agree to this request and Mrs Smith refused to attend without her union representation.  Talon went ahead with the meeting in her absence. Talon dismissed Mrs Smith for gross misconduct. Her appeal against dismissal was unsuccessful and she brought a claim for unfair dismissal.

Employment Tribunal

The Employment Tribunal found although Mrs Smith’s conduct was potentially a fair reason for dismissal, refusing to postpone the disciplinary hearing made the dismissal unfair.

In the Tribunal’s view, no reasonable employer would have refused a further short postponement and gone ahead in the employee’s absence, given the importance of employees attending such hearings. Although in some circumstances it is appropriate to go ahead with such a hearing in the employee’s absence the Tribunal considered this was not one of those cases as there had been no misbehaviour on the part of Mrs Smith, the process itself had not gone on for a particularly lengthy period of time and the requested postponement was short.

Talon appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). A key ground of their appeal was that the Tribunal had failed to take into account the rules on being accompanied to hearings set out in section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (1999 Act).

Appeal

The 1999 Act sets out the statutory right of employees to be accompanied to disciplinary (and grievance) hearings. Under section 10, where an employee’s chosen companion is unavailable, an employer must re-arrange the hearing if the employee suggests a reasonable alternative time which isn’t more than 5 workings days later than when it was supposed to take place.  The proposed alternative dates given by Mrs Smith’s union representative fell outside the 5 working day limit so Talon were not in breach of their duties under the 1999 Act in refusing to agree to these dates.

However, whether or not Talon were in breach of the 1999 Act was a separate question from whether Mrs Smith had been unfairly dismissed under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The EAT highlighted that although a breach of the 1999 Act would almost always mean that the employee was unfairly dismissed, this does not mean the opposite is true or that the Tribunal is prevented from finding that the dismissal was unfair.

The EAT upheld the Tribunal’s finding that the dismissal was unfair. It had not been reasonable to refuse to postpone the hearing and Talon had been “too impatient and hasty” to dismiss Mrs Smith.

Comment            

This case highlights the potential risks of deciding to proceed with a disciplinary hearing in the absence of an employee, particularly when the reason the employee is unable to attend on that date is due to the unavailability of their chosen representative.  The 1999 Act does not provide the single answer to whether an employer has to postpone a hearing or not.

In determining whether or not to proceed in an employee’s absence in these circumstances, employers should consider:

  • how long the disciplinary process has been ongoing;
  • the employee’s behaviour during that process, such as their willingness to engage;
  • the wider context, including the employee’s length of service; and,
  • the potential impact caused by agreeing to any alternative dates suggested by the employee, even if they fall outside the 5 working days set in the 1999 Act.

For further advice on dealing with disciplinary hearings, please contact your usual contact in the Employment and Pensions Team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

This week: Our working weeks

Two interesting pieces on how we work, and how we want to work, made the mainstream media last week.

One of these was a story about PwC who are inviting recruits to specify when they would like to work (be it two days a week or just two months a year), and then trying to match those people to projects where they can do that. They call it their Flexible Talent Network, an initiative which is in response to a study they carried out which showed that just under half of the respondents prioritised flexible working and a good work-life balance the most when looking for a job.

This sort of idea is inevitably easier for some types of organisations to implement than others. But it does prompt the question of whether the flexible working that other organisations profess to offer as a benefit to staff is really that flexible. In comparison, it feels like finite flexibility within a framework. The default position still very often seems to be 9 – 5, Monday – Friday, in the office, and only a reluctant agreement to accept something like a 30 minute earlier start and finish time, or one day working from home, where a reason to refuse can’t be found. PwC is looking to tap into a talent pool that doesn’t want to, or can’t, conform to a traditional view of working and 2000 people have signed up in the first 2 weeks. It is often said that these sort of changes in employee attitudes are driven by the Millennials amongst us but everyone could take some benefit from a fundamental rethink about what flexible working actually means.

The second story of last week that caught my eye showed the significant proportion of employees who are opting to exercise flexibility as to where they do the work that they can’t find time to do during their official working hours. The results of a study by the University of the West of England confirmed what those of us who travel by train will see everyday (i.e. the significant number of people who are working whilst they commute).  With the advent of technology, it is easy and efficient to catch up on emails on what otherwise would be dead time, allowing an earlier exit from the office or avoiding the need to log-on once home. As it happens, I am writing this whilst I do my commute. The study asks the question of whether time spent working in this way should actually count as working time – the office worker’s equivalent of the Tyco case on mobile workers. I can’t see the law changing in that way but the study does raise other questions which employers ought to consider about employee wellbeing and data security. As an employer, how important is it to know how many additional hours your employees are doing? What monitoring arrangements would you put in place to find out when this is happening outside of the office? Ought you actually to prohibit employees from working on the train if the person next to them could read over their shoulder, or the train wi-fi be insufficiently secure?

And for those of us who do work on trains, what right do we have to ask the person who is actually unwinding whilst they travel by listening to their music, but causing a distraction in our unofficial working environment, to TURN IT DOWN??!!

Kirsty Thompson, Partner, works within Devonshires Employment & Pensions Team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

Extending the effective date of termination in cases of gross misconduct

Lancaster and Duke Limited v Ms V Wileman

Summary

Following a recent decision from the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) it has been clarified that when an employer has a genuine entitlement to summarily dismiss an employee on the cusp of accruing 2 years’ service because of their conduct, the employee is not entitled to rely on the provision in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA) about adding on statutory notice to their length of service to determine whether they have the requisite service to enable them to bring a claim of unfair dismissal.

Background

Ms V Wileman (the Claimant) was employed as a recruitment consultant for a small employment agency business (the Respondent). Two days before completing two years’ service with the Respondent, the Claimant was dismissed (summarily) for gross misconduct. Subsequently she lodged a claim for unfair dismissal which the Respondent disputed, referring to the minimum requirement of two years of service which the Claimant did not have.

The Claimant argued that her length of service could be extended by the provision under S.97(2) ERA. This sets out that an employee who is dismissed in the absence of notice can in some circumstances artificially extend the effective date of termination to the date on which the proper statutory notice would have expired. S.86 ERA establishes a statutory minimum notice period of one week for an employee with more than 1 month and up to 2 years’ service, which in this case would have brought the Claimant’s service over the requisite 2 years, therefore allowing her to proceed with a claim of unfair dismissal. However S.86 also preserves an employer’s right to dismiss without notice where there has been gross misconduct.

At first instance the Employment Tribunal agreed with the Claimant and accepted that she had sufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim.

Appeal at the EAT

The Respondent appealed and the EAT upheld the appeal.

Although s.97(2) may allow for the effective date of termination to be deemed a later date where no notice was given, this provision will always be subject to s.86(6) and the employer’s right to give no notice. Effectively this means that there is no extension of length of service in cases of gross misconduct. As the Tribunal had not made a specific finding on whether the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct, it was not possible to apply the principle at hand and the case was therefore remitted to the Tribunal.

Comment

Although the situation may not be one which is common, the decision comes as reassurance to those employers who dismiss employees close to their 2nd anniversary. Providing the employer was entitled to dismiss the employee for gross misconduct, the employee will not be entitled to add notice to take their length of service over 2 years and bring a claim of unfair dismissal. However an employer can’t just label a dismissal as a gross misconduct one in order to take the benefit of this decision – a Tribunal will look at whether there actually was an entitlement to dismiss for gross misconduct before ruling out the extension of service on that ground.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

Court of Appeal Rules on Sleep-ins

In a significant ruling, the Court of Appeal has determined care workers who work ‘sleep-ins’ are not entitled to be paid the national minimum wage for every hour of a sleep-in.

Background

In 2017, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) considered a number of claims regarding support workers for vulnerable adults who stayed at their place of work during night shifts, known as ‘sleep-ins’. The question for the EAT was whether those employees working sleep-in shifts were entitled to be paid the national minimum wage for each hour of that shift under the National Minimum Wage Regulations (the Regulations). At that time, it was common practice for such workers to be paid a small fixed allowance for sleep-ins which equated to an average hourly rate of less than the national minimum wage.

In considering how such shifts should be dealt with under the Regulations, the EAT developed a “multi-factorial” approach, finding that the facts of each case needed to be examined including the details of the arrangements regarding the sleep-in and the terms of the employment contract. Taking into account these factors, where workers were working merely by being present at the employer’s premises they would be considered ‘working’ and entitled to be paid minimum wage for each hour of the shift. However, where workers were simply provided with sleeping accommodation and were on-call, they would be ‘available for work’ and fall under an exemption in the Regulations which meant they were only entitled to be paid the minimum wage for those hours they were awake and performing their duties.

The EAT considered that the support workers fell under the category of ‘working’ rather than ‘available for work’ and so were entitled to be paid the national minimum wage for each hour of the sleep-in. This decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Court of Appeal Decision

In an unexpected turn of events, the Court of Appeal rejected the approach of the EAT and found that time spent by care staff asleep was not time in which they were working. Under a ‘common-sense’ reading of the Regulations, the court determined that time spent at a sleep-in should always be considered time spent ‘available for work’ so that workers are only entitled to be paid for time when they are awake and performing their duties.

Comment

This ruling will be welcomed by many employers within the care sector who were concerned about the potentially significant financial implications of making back payments to affected staff and whether they should join the Social Care Compliance Scheme in order to manage such payments.

However, although permission to appeal was denied by the Court of Appeal, it is still open to the Claimants to apply for permission directly to the Supreme Court, so it may be that the issue of national minimum wage for sleep-ins has yet to be finally determined.

If you would like to discuss this case further, please contact your usual contact in the Employment and Pensions team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

Update: Taxation of Termination Payments

In a sign that they intend to fully enforce the new rules, HMRC has begun asking housing associations to confirm that they have been fully implementing the new legislation on the taxation of termination payments.

The Changes

From 6 April 2018 several changes were made to the taxation of termination payments, the key one of which related to PILON payments. Previously, employers often determined or agreed (rightly or wrongly) the tax treatment of a PILON payment depending upon whether there was a PILON clause in the employment contract or not, or didn’t identify a notice payment at all and just rolled the notice amount into a global ex gratia figure with an immediate termination date. However now, where a termination payment is made and notice has not been worked in full then, subject to certain exceptions, an amount equal to the period of notice due but not worked has to be taxed. This is regardless of whether there is a PILON clause in the employment contract or not. For more detail on changes to PILON please see our latest Employment Law Brief.

The Government advised that the reason for this change was to avoid situations in which payments could be structured to minimise tax liability. It is consistent with the Government’s wider objectives around tax avoidance and tax evasion. It was also said to be about making the system clearer; for example, there could sometimes be confusion as to whether a PILON clause had been implied into an employment contract and therefore whether it should be subject to tax and this uncertainty has now been removed as the payment will be subject to tax either way.

Action by HMRC

We understand that several housing associations have been approached by HMRC asking them to provide confirmation that they have complied with the rules around taxing termination payments.

Where an association cannot provide such a confirmation, they will be required to make a disclosure of all the termination payments made within the last 4 years. Although the timing and format of the disclosure may be agreed with HMRC, supporting evidence will need to be provided about:

  • the identity of the employees and date their employment ended;
  • the termination payments made to them;
  • details of any errors made on the taxation of these payments, or queries raised by HMRC; and,
  • how the error came about.

Comment

These proactive steps by HMRC are a clear sign it is taking the changes seriously. If an employer receives a letter from HMRC asking them to confirm they are following the new legislation, it is important this is responded to promptly. If you are unsure whether any of the termination payments you have made within the last 4 years have been taxed correctly, in particular relating to PILON payments, you should seek advice as to whether full disclosure will need to be made to HMRC.

If a disclosure is made about previous errors and additional tax is deemed to be due, then it will fall to the employer to pay in the first instance. Employers will need to look at any terms which they agreed with the employee on their departure as to whether there is the benefit of indemnity protection such that any additional tax, penalties etc can then be recovered from the employee in turn.

Employers should also be aware that further changes affecting termination payments will come into force next year. From 6 April 2019, employers will need to pay national insurance contributions on any portion of termination payments above the £30,000 threshold.

If you have any queries on the above, please contact your usual contact in the Employment and Pensions Team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

Employment Status – Pimlico Plumbers in the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has finally delivered its decision in the important Pimlico Plumber’s case in a ruling which has far reaching consequences for workers considered to be self-employed in the so called “gig economy”.

The facts of the case are simple. Gary Smith was one of 380 tradesmen working for Pimlico Plumbers, a London-based domestic maintenance outfit providing a 24-hour property maintenance service. Mr Smith worked at Pimlico for 6 years and then suffered a heart attack. Mr. Smith asked to reduce his hours to help his recuperation but Pimlico refused and eventually repossessed his company-provided work van. In 2011, he filed a claim for unfair dismissal as an employee, discrimination on grounds of disability and for payment of sick pay and holiday pay.

The Employment Tribunal rejected Smith’s claim that he was an employee, but did hold that he should be considered a “worker”. A “worker” is considered self-employed but within another’s business rather than in their own concern as a self-employed contractor. Workers’ rights do not provide protection against unfair dismissal or generally the right to sick pay, but they do guarantee the minimum wage, protection against discrimination and holiday pay. Pimlico appealed but the decision was upheld through the Employment Appeals Tribunal and the Court of Appeal. Pimlico finally appealed the matter to the Supreme Court and they have also come down on the side of Mr Smith, confirming that he was a worker and as such has valuable (but limited) employment rights.

There are a number of factors that persuaded the Supreme Court and the lower courts and Tribunals to find in Mr Smith’s favour, but they can all be summed up under the issue of control. The fact that Pimlico exercised tight administrative control over Smith, imposed conditions around how much they paid him and on his clothing and appearance for work, and restricted his ability to carry out similar work for competitors if he moved on from the company, all supported the conclusion that he was a ‘worker’ and not genuinely self-employed. Furthermore, Mr Smith was under an obligation to do the work personally, rather than pass it on to a substitute contractor, even though he did have the option to pass work to another Pimlico worker. This was despite Mr Smith having been VAT-registered and paying self-employment taxes during his six years with Pimlico – these factors were “trumped” by the overriding fact of control.

The case has huge ramifications for the gig economy and could lead to claims for back dated holiday pay by workers in similar companies, such as City Sprint, Deliveroo and Uber. However, the law is still not clear cut. Although the principles enunciated in Pimlico will be applied in future cases, each case is fact sensitive and will be decided on its own facts. It will be important for employers to consider the reality of the relationship with self-employed contractors rather than relying on contractual labels. In the absence of government legislation, there are still no overarching principles to help guide employers through the maze of employment status. It is therefore yet to be seen whether or not the decision in Pimlico has changed the game.

If you have any queries please speak to your usual contact in the Employment and Pensions team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

Holiday Dates for 2018/2019

The way bank holidays fall in 2018 means those employers with a holiday year running from 1st April to 31st March may need to give their employees an additional day of annual leave.

In the April 2018 to March 2019 period there will only be 7 bank holidays, but there were 9 bank holidays in April 2017 to March 2018.  This is because Good Friday 2018 fell on 30th March.

Under the Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR), employees are entitled to a minimum of 28 days (5.6 weeks) annual leave. This means that where an employer’s leave year runs from 1st April to 31st March and an employee’s contract of employment specifies their right to annual leave as ‘20 days plus bank holidays’, they would be left with only 27 days’ annual leave.

To avoid being in breach of the WTR, employers should therefore ensure that any employees with this type of contract receive an additional extra day of annual leave in order to bring the total number of leave days back up to the 28 day minimum.  Under the WTR, employers cannot offset for the additional day that such employees will have benefited from in the 17/18 holiday year.

If your employment contracts are drafted as ’28 days inclusive of bank holidays’ then your systems will need to be adjusted to ensure they have 21 days to take on days of their choosing.

Even for other employees, if the employment contract is drafted to specifically give the right to 8 bank holidays then such employees could argue a breach of contract if they are only given 7.  On a breach of contract claim it will be easier to argue that the 9th bank holiday employees received last year should be counted in credit for the shortfall in this holiday year.

If you have any queries, please contact your usual contact in the Employment and Pensions team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

Gender Pay Gap Reporting – The Results

As the midnight deadline for gender pay gap reporting approached on 4 April, thousands of employers rushed to publish their data in time.

The statistics from over 10,000 companies and public sector organisations are now available on a government website. Whilst there are significant variations between employers, the results have shown a significant gender gap in favour of men persisting across all industries.

Requirement to Report

As outlined in our previous blogs here, organisations with over 250 employees had been asked to report on the following:

  • mean and median gender pay gap in hourly pay;
  • mean and median bonus gender pay gap;
  • proportion of men and women receiving a bonus payment; and,
  • proportion of men and women in each pay quartile.

The aim of introducing the reports was to create transparency around gender pay differences in order to highlight differences and promote change to reduce the gap.

Key Findings

An analysis of the data so far shows a significant gender pay gap in favour of men. The median pay for men was higher than women in around 75% of organisations, with an average pay gap of around 18%. The large proportion of employers showing a pay gap perhaps explains the reluctance of many to publish their pay gap report any earlier, particularly given the scrutiny some organisations such as the BBC have faced when doing so.

Although the average pay gap represents a historic low, the continued existence of the gap and slow pace of change have been criticised, with the Prime Minister describing the gap as one of the “burning injustices” damaging society which needs to be addressed.

In many cases the gap within an organisation can be attributed to an overrepresentation of women among low-paid retail, care and administration roles, whilst men are over-represented in senior management and technical roles in IT and finance. The reasons for this are complex but may relate in part to availability of flexible/family-friendly working hours in certain roles and societal attitudes about care/service related jobs and responsibility for childcare.

Enforcement

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has made clear it will be taking enforcement action against those (estimated to be as many as 1500) who failed to report by the deadline. Such organisations could face a significant fine and also reputational damage in being “named and shamed” on the government website. It is therefore essential that any eligible employer who has not yet published their report does so as soon as possible.

The EHRC will also be analysing the data provided and exercising its powers to request further information where figures appear to be implausible. A doctoring of the figures could therefore also lead to enforcement action.

Closing the Gap

The gender pay gap report for each organisation will be available via the government portal for three years, so it will be possible to track changes over time. This, in combination with the widespread publicity surrounding this issue, is leading many employers to reflect on how they can improve or eradicate their gender pay gap. Steps that can be taken:

  • addressing conscious and unconscious bias in recruitment and promotion processes;
  • promoting family friendly policies such as shared parental leave and flexible working practices; and
  • implementing robust policies to prevent pregnancy and maternity discrimination.

If you would like to discuss further, please contact your usual contact in the Employment & Pensions Team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment

Deferred Debt Arrangements

From 6 April 2018, employers who are members of multi-employer defined benefit schemes will have the option of entering into a Deferred Debt Agreement (“DDA”) in order to avoid crystallisation of their employer debt when an employee cessation event occurs.

Employer Debt

Employer or “Section 75” debt is triggered when an employment cessation event occurs, i.e an employer in a multi-employer defined benefit scheme ceases to employ any active members in the scheme and another employer still has active members in the same scheme.

The value of the employer debt is the difference between the employer’s liabilities under the scheme and the scheme’s relevant assets in relation to those liabilities, an amount that can often be substantial.

Many employers have raised concerns that the requirements relating to these debts are overly onerous, particularly for smaller employers where the employer debt can simply be unaffordable. DDAs are therefore intended to address these difficulties by providing an ability to defer the payment of the employer debt until a later date.

Deferred Debt Arrangements

A DDA is entered into between the multi-employer scheme and the employer wishing to become a ‘deferred employer’.

Under a DDA, the deferred employer maintains an on-going commitment to the pension scheme and is treated as if they are still employing one person who is an active member of the scheme, although in reality they have no active members.

Trustee consent is required in order for a DDA to proceed. The Trustees are able to consent if:

  • an employment cessation event has occurred;
  • the scheme is not in a Pension Fund Protection assessment period or being wound up;
  • the trustees are satisfied the scheme is unlikely to go into a Pension Fund Protection assessment in the next 12 months; and,
  • the trustees are satisfied that the employer’s covenant is unlikely to weaken materially in the next 12 months.

Once the DDA has come into effect, the employer will have no liability to pay the employer debt until circumstances arise which terminate the DDA.

Termination of a DDA

A DDA will terminate in a number of circumstances such as where the trustees consent, where the scheme is wound up, where the employer engages in certain types of restructuring or where all employers in the scheme are insolvent or in DDAs.

Depending on the reason why termination of the DDA is triggered, an employment cessation event may occur and employer debt will become payable at this point.

When might a DDA be useful?

DDAs are in many ways similar to the funding arrangements that some employers are able to enter into with LGPS schemes so introduce a welcome new degree of flexibility for employers in defined benefit schemes such as SHPS. Entering into a DDA can also buy the employer time in which to make deficit contribution payments and so reduce the employer liability that will ultimately be due.

However, DDAs are unlikely to be as attractive in corporate transactions where an employer wishes to be free of its DB liabilities, as an under a DDA an employer retains their liabilities and responsibilities in relation to the scheme. In these situations, employers are likely to consider apportionment or withdrawal arrangements to be more appropriate.

If you have any queries, please contact your usual contact in the employment and pension’s team.

Posted in Devonshires | Leave a comment