In Reply to: Trustee Powers Question posted by GrumpyGuts on 01 February 2006 at 19:17:41:
This is a fair question. I'm not supposed to divulge what goes on in Trustee meetings, but I'll make an exception here (and risk censure at the next Trustee meeting in a couple of week's time).
Between December's meeting (when IBM first put a set of proposals to the Trustee) and mid-January (when it put a revised set to us), I personally exchanged several hundred (yes, several hundred) emails with other trustees. Some of these did indeed consider the implications of disagreeing or trying to obtain different proposals from IBM by other means, including using what unilateral powers the deeds give to the Trust. However when it came to the crunch we jointly decided to do what Jim Lamb's letter outlines.
Several people have complained that these changes have been introduced just a year after an apparently long-term agreement was reached between IBM and the Trust. Jim Lamb used the word 'disappointed' in his letter to members. I personally feel that 'betrayal' would be a better word (and I say that deliberately with my Trustee hat firmly on).
But I repeat what I said in other posts - IBM has the legal power, like most sponsors, to make changes both to the scheme and more importantly to the terms and conditions of employment of its personnel. As far as the latter are concerned (and the giving of a non-pensionable salary increase to employees who consent to it falls into this category it would seem according to the legal advice we received) the Trust has no power to do anything but go along with it.
And if the trust can do nothing, the best an employee can do if it comes to the crunch is claim there has been a 'breach of trust' and take IBM to court. However a legal battle between an individual employee and a multi-billion dollar corporation is hardly a fair fight.
Dave (with Trustee Hat on for once)