Ian Chapman-Curry
Legal Director
PSL legal director
Article
6
On 20 February 2015, the High Court gave its ruling on the remedies available to members and the legal impact of its previous finding that IBM had breached its duty of good faith towards them. With 340,585 words stretching over 512 pages, the IBM judgments give Charles Dickens’s Bleak House (360,947) a run for its money in both length and legal complexity.
Our overview (IBM Remedies Judgment - What does it all mean?) is a far more manageable three pages.
We've distilled the key lessons from the judgment into this alert to provide practical points for employers dealing with pension changes.
Remembering three Ps (proposal, privilege and protection) provides a framework for minimising legal risk.
IBM has lessons for all benefit change exercises, especially those that involve pensions, retirement terms and policies and employee consultation. The cost and complexity of getting it wrong mean that employers should plan their proposal carefully and with legal advice.
A key plank of member complaints in IBM was that the employer's previous benefit change exercises and communications had given them 'reasonable expectations' regarding how such benefits will be treated going forwards. Many benefit change exercises are considered in isolation, especially if managers and advisers are no longer around to provide a context for the proposals.
Employers (and their legal advisers) should check records covering contracts of employment, offer letters, employee handbooks, pension scheme booklets, communications on benefits (including letters, emails and intranet pages), discussions with trustees (including letters and meeting minutes) and previous proposals and consultations.
One of the areas that the High Court considered in IBM was the importance of the employer's business case. Employers can mitigate some of the legal risks associated with benefit change exercises by:
In IBM, the High Court found that the managers of the UK business had not established or communicated a valid business case for the proposed changes. One of Warren J's concerns was a subsidiary merely following a direction from its parent company rather than formulating its own business case.
Ensure consultation with employees on pension scheme changes is based on a proposal rather than a 'done deal'. Employers must enter into and conduct consultation 'in good faith' to avoid the risk of breaching implied terms of good faith.
One useful way to manage legal risks is to ensure that employers give enough time to:
Employers (and their advisers) should ensure that internal and sensitive documents relating to benefit changes do, as far as possible, attract legal privilege.
This can have an important impact on how and whether those documents are disclosed in court if the matter becomes subject to litigation.
Take steps to maintain legal privilege and protect confidentiality by:
Before putting together a proposal, employers should consider these questions and discuss the answers with their legal advisers:
CECI NE CONSTITUE PAS UN AVIS JURIDIQUE. L'information qui est présentée dans le site Web sous quelque forme que ce soit est fournie à titre informatif uniquement. Elle ne constitue pas un avis juridique et ne devrait pas être interprétée comme tel. Aucun utilisateur ne devrait prendre ou négliger de prendre des décisions en se fiant uniquement à ces renseignements, ni ignorer les conseils juridiques d'un professionnel ou tarder à consulter un professionnel sur la base de ce qu'il a lu dans ce site Web. Les professionnels de Gowling WLG seront heureux de discuter avec l'utilisateur des différentes options possibles concernant certaines questions juridiques précises.