Exit
payments (or severance payments) in the public sector have been the subject of
much media scrutiny in recent months.
As
employment lawyers acting for private and public sector employees, we regularly
come up against these issues when it comes to trying to advise on and negotiate
settlements or agree termination packages. As trade union lawyers, we are also
opposed in principle to any government attempts to water down employee rights.
On
26 September 2016, HM treasury issued its response to a consultation on reforms
to public sector exit payments. The proposed changes will affect the civil
service, the NHS, teachers, police, firefighters, members of the armed forces
and employees of local authorities.
The
government proposals are as follows:
- Setting a maximum tariff for calculating exit payments at three weeks' pay per year of service.
- Introducing a cap of up to 15 months' salary on all redundancy payments.
- Setting a maximum salary for the calculation of exit payments.
- Tapering the amount of lump sum compensation an individual is entitled to receive as they get close to the normal pension age or target retirement age of the pension scheme to which they belong, or could belong, in that employment.
- Requiring employer-funded early access to pensions to be limited or ended, denying access altogether by increasing the minimum age requirements or introducing more flexibility (which I interpret as ‘restrictions’) as to the circumstances in which pension top ups are available.
The
government says these reforms could achieve savings of up to £250 million a
year and bring public sector exit terms in line with those in the private
sector.
And
let’s not forget, the changes proposed above are in addition to two other
recent initiatives:
- Imposing a cap of £95,000 on the total aggregate value of most public sector exit payments.
- High-earning employees leaving the public sector to repay some or all of their exit payments if they return to public sector employment within 12 months of their departure.
The
government received around 350 responses to the consultation on public sector
exit payments. The majority opposed the proposals. However, despite that
opposition (and as is commonly the case these days) the government has suggested
that it will nevertheless be going ahead with some or all of the changes. I
begin to wonder whether responding to these consultations is at all worthwhile.
Aside
from the obvious attack on public sector pay and benefits, two major issues
were raised in opposition to the proposals:
1. What about collective agreements?
The public sector has the benefit of numerous workplace
collective agreements, carefully negotiated between employers and trade unions,
often over decades, and which afford employees significant redundancy benefits.
Those collective agreements are industry-specific, balancing the needs of the
employee and employer. Imposing restrictions that cut across these agreements
will be damaging, have a disproportionate impact on particular groups of employees
and could have a serious impact on staff morale.
2. What about discrimination?
Might
employer-funded early retirement and tapering payments for those close to
retirement age be age discriminatory? There are certainly cases where it has
been argued and questions of ‘justification’ and ‘proportionality’ are surely
going to come into play, depending what form the final changes take. It is understood that the government will
consider the case for applying elements of the framework flexibly, for example,
where it can be demonstrated that a particular option may not lead to
significant cost savings, where there is an alternative approach that may lead
to costs savings, or where a particular option may have an unwarranted impact
on equality. However, just how much leeway there is for this remains to be
seen.
The
government wants departments to begin restructuring their exit terms
immediately and to produce proposals for reform by the end of 2016. Departments
should consult on the proposals and follow the normal process of discussions
and negotiations with trade unions and other workforce representatives, to try
to seek agreement to them. The government would like the entire process to be
concluded by the end of June 2017. Should it not be possible to achieve
meaningful reform within this timescale, the government will consider options
for primary legislation to take forward reform.
So
it is not so much a question of “if” these changes come in we need to be
prepared for them, it is a question of “when” they do but I think we can count
on continued strong opposition from trade unions.
Daniel Kindell - Associate Solicitor
For further information on Employment Rights please visit our website or call 0033 3344 9603 and ask to speak with our Employment Rights team.
No comments:
Post a Comment