Archive 6 of IBM UK's radical downgrade : AMIPP Forums (Message Boards)
of its pension provision.
YOU CAN NO LONGER POST HERE! This is now an archive
Re: Pension Statements - IBM interpretation of first court judgement.
Posted by: goner (IP Logged)
Date: 16 February 2014 06:59PM
Dave,
Your memory and your understanding seems very clear. Thank you for writing the explanations in your two posts above. There seems to be a more basic question here, which I am sure you must have faced already. If the rules of a trust - which, as you point out, are central to its operation - permit the employer to over-ride the trustees, then is it really operating as a trust? It seems as if the trustees are unable to do the job that the law expects of them, because the rules prevent it. I am surprised that that is allowed within trust law, let alone recent pensions legislation (post-Maxwell). How do trustees - since you have been one - resolve this dilemma?
Your memory and your understanding seems very clear. Thank you for writing the explanations in your two posts above. There seems to be a more basic question here, which I am sure you must have faced already. If the rules of a trust - which, as you point out, are central to its operation - permit the employer to over-ride the trustees, then is it really operating as a trust? It seems as if the trustees are unable to do the job that the law expects of them, because the rules prevent it. I am surprised that that is allowed within trust law, let alone recent pensions legislation (post-Maxwell). How do trustees - since you have been one - resolve this dilemma?
Sorry, you do not have permission to post/reply in this forum.