Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Dr G Parker v 1) MDU Services Ltd 2) Trustees of the Medical Defence Union Pensions and Life Assurance Scheme [2017]
Dr G Parker v 1) MDU Services Ltd 2) Trustees of the Medical Defence Union Pensions and Life Assurance Scheme [2017]
Published on: 16/11/2017
Issues Covered: Pensions
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
Background

The Claimant had retired after working for 27 years. Her full-time equivalent (“FTE”) service, taking account of periods of part-time working, was 21 years (she'd worked part-time after the birth of her daughter). The Claimant’s particular complaint was that, whereas a full-time worker who had worked 20 or more years as at the Normal Retirement Date would be entitled under the Scheme to the maximum available pension of 2/3 of final salary, she was only entitled to 21/27 (about 78%) of the maximum pension notwithstanding the fact that she had more than 20 years’ FTE service. The Claimant contended that the Scheme amounted to double pro-rating in the case of those with some part-time service and put her at a particular disadvantage.

Indeed, when approaching retirement, the claimant had been told by the pension scheme administrators that she would receive a maximum total yearly pension of £69,726.59. That sum was then revised downwards to a new estimated benefit of £52,798.96.
The pension scheme benefits depended on the date and age at the date of entry into the scheme. The correct comparator was, therefore, a full-time worker who started on the Scheme at the same age and on the same date as the Claimant. The Claimant’s suggested comparator would have failed to take account of a critical feature of the Scheme which was that accrual rates depended on the age of joining and the years remaining until normal pension date.

The claimant also argued before the EAT that the tribunal should not have accepted arguments made by the employer after their submissions had been accepted by the tribunal. It may be preferable to have arguments set out at the time of the decision-making process but it is not fatal to a defence to rely on different reasoning later:

"Whilst it seems obvious that a justification that is fully evidenced and which was articulated at the time the measure was implemented would garner greater respect than one put forward a long time after implementation, it is clear from the passages above [in Ministry of Justice v O’Brien [2013] ICR 49] that an employer is not precluded from relying upon a later justification."
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2017/0113_17_0711.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 16/11/2017