British trade unions lose appeal over $24 bln cost of pension reform

The FBU and the BMA took their legal challenge to the Court of Appeal in February, arguing the government had failed to consult on the changes and that the effects were unlawfully discriminatory. However, Judge Elisabeth Laing said in a written ruling that there was no "unambiguous promise of consultation" and that "the indirect discrimination against younger members of the new schemes was justified".


Reuters | Updated: 17-04-2024 16:32 IST | Created: 17-04-2024 16:32 IST
British trade unions lose appeal over $24 bln cost of pension reform

Two British trade unions on Wednesday lost an appeal over changes to public sector pensions they argued allows the government to unlawfully pass the 19-billion-pound ($23.7 billion) cost of discriminatory pension reforms onto workers.

The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) and the British Medical Association (BMA) argued Britain's finance ministry was effectively making members of newer pension schemes foot the bill for its own mistake. A judge at London's High Court had dismissed the two unions' case in March last year. The Court of Appeal dismissed the unions' appeal against that decision on Wednesday.

The unions' legal action followed a 2018 court ruling that the exclusion of younger staff from more beneficial, "legacy" pension schemes, as part of wider government reforms, amounted to unlawful age discrimination. That ruling landed the government with an estimated 17-19 billion pound bill for future pension payments to around three million public sector workers.

In 2021, the government included that cost in the valuation of public sector pension schemes – without which, the unions said, scheme members' benefits would have increased or their contributions would have been reduced. The FBU and the BMA took their legal challenge to the Court of Appeal in February, arguing the government had failed to consult on the changes and that the effects were unlawfully discriminatory.

However, Judge Elisabeth Laing said in a written ruling that there was no "unambiguous promise of consultation" and that "the indirect discrimination against younger members of the new schemes was justified". ($1 = 0.8029 pounds)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Give Feedback