• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

European Court of Justice rules in favour of Waterford workers pensions


Burnout

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
7,275
Twitter
I have a life.
This has just been released and there is little info on it at the moment bar the fact that the Irish Government should have stepped in at at the bankruptcy stage of the company where the pension pot did'nt add up to the full amount. I think 10 workers were involved in the case and was brought after an english lady won her case. It could secure them €2.6m in pension entitlements — and many millions more for thousands of other Irish workers. [edit: 26 APRIL 2013. THE State faces having to find up to €200m to compensate Waterford Crystal workers for the loss of their pension benefits].

"...Much of their claim rests on the case of English woman Carol Robins who successfully took the British government to court over a similar double insolvency.She had only received 49% of her pension, considerably more than the Waterford employees are expecting."

When the matter was brought before the Commercial Court the workers said the State had failed to meet its obligations under the EU Insolvency Directive to “protect” workers whose employers become insolvent. Department of Finance Kevin Cardiff (where is he now) said it was not possible for the Government to guarantee either the €13bn actuarial cost of full pension entitlements in insolvency situations or the lesser unspecified cost of paying less than 100% of the entitlements of persons still working at the time of insolvency. So Kevin was wrong again and there he is making a fortune abroad making more decisions.
 
Last edited:
D

Dylan2010

I dont understand it, most pension funds are in deficit , is everyone without pensions now meant to shore them up via taxes?
 

Passer-by

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2010
Messages
1,436
This has just been released and there is little info on it at the moment bar the fact that the Irish Government should have stepped in at at the bankruptcy stage of the company where the pension pot did'nt add up to the full amount. I think 10 workers were involved in the case and was brought after an english lady won her case. It could secure them €2.6m in pension entitlements — and many millions more for thousands of other Irish workers.

"...Much of their claim rests on the case of English woman Carol Robins who successfully took the British government to court over a similar double insolvency.She had only received 49% of her pension, considerably more than the Waterford employees are expecting."

When the matter was brought before the Commercial Court the workers said the State had failed to meet its obligations under the EU Insolvency Directive to “protect” workers whose employers become insolvent. Department of Finance Kevin Cardiff (where is he now) said it was not possible for the Government to guarantee either the €13bn actuarial cost of full pension entitlements in insolvency situations or the lesser unspecified cost of paying less than 100% of the entitlements of persons still working at the time of insolvency. So kevin was wrong again and there he is making a fortune abroad making more decisions.
It's a ruling by the ECJ not the ECHR.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,046
I dont understand it, most pension funds are in deficit , is everyone without pensions now meant to shore them up via taxes?
There is an EU directive requiring the state to make sure workers are protected. The state didn't do it. Not sure of the specifics.
 
D

Dylan2010

There is an EU directive requiring the state to make sure workers are protected. The state didn't do it. Not sure of the specifics.
it would sound like at the nearest whiff of a deficit then, the gov would be forced to close down these companies "to protect the workers". This doesnt sound any different from the state bailing out Anglo where no insurance fund exists or has been built up.
 

Howya

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 29, 2012
Messages
1,690
Will this give companies an incentive not to fund DB schemes as they know the State will have to bailout the pensioners - what sort of incentive is that?
 

Congalltee

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
6,211
Can the thread title be edited, it is seriously misleading and plain factually wrong?

It is the European Court of Justice, not the ECHR.
V
Mods don't do that type of thing unless the OP delivers a parchment with ink made from pig's blood requesting them to do so, giving an indemnity to pie media ltd and expressing a thousand apologies. But they will not act on their own initiative.
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,986
If Europe thinks so, let Europe fund it.
What part of Ireland agreeing to be bound by European Directives is so difficult for you to understand?

Seeking to deflect from something?

Let me guess, who was in office at the time? Would it have been your hero, by any chance?

Who failed to ensure Ireland lived up to it's obligations under the Directive? Fianna Fail, perhaps?
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,809
Will this give companies an incentive not to fund DB schemes as they know the State will have to bailout the pensioners - what sort of incentive is that?
Yep. It is a legal minefield. Lawyers rubbing their hands with glee.


Consider this. The rulling covers a specific situation where the pension scheme was wound up because the company was insolvent. There were no assets available in the company to pay any more to the workers to make up the pension deficit.

But what if the company is not insilvent and winds up the scheme. That is what PTSB have just announced. What is the role of this "government obligation" in that case.

PTSB are forcing wind up of the scheme because presumably they are excercising a legal right under the legal terms of the trust to stop making contributions. Does this mean the government has to pass some legislation to force companies to make up a deficit even though the schemes were established and are run on the basis that there is no legal obligation to guarantee to make up any deficit?

Or does this mean that the government will have to pick up the tab from those companies that force wind up of their pension schemes in deficit? That would be the same the bank liability guarrantee and every company in Ireland would be mad not to wind up their schemes and let the deficit be funded by all taxpayers.


This is crazy and a complete mess.
 

GDPR

1
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
224,093
What part of Ireland agreeing to be bound by European Directives is so difficult for you to understand?
The part that says you can keep on piling on extra costs on taxpayers and businesses and everything will still be hunky dory.
 

tipp revolution

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
2,603
I hope Sir Anthony has a good supply of Bisodol in whatever paradise tax haven he happens to be residing at the moment.
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,986
The part that says you can keep on piling on extra costs on taxpayers and businesses and everything will still be hunky dory.
So you want an a la carte approach to governance? Hardly a surprise, coming from you.

I note you failed to answer my other questions:


Seeking to deflect from something?

Let me guess, who was in office at the time? Would it have been your hero, by any chance?

Who failed to ensure Ireland lived up to it's obligations under the Directive? Fianna Fail, perhaps?
Go on Tony, have a bash at those.....
 

Burnout

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
7,275
Twitter
I have a life.
Can the thread title be edited, it is seriously misleading and plain factually wrong?

It is the European Court of Justice, not the ECHR.
V
Sorry for the OP heading. If Sync could modify the title please it would be appreciated.
 

constitutionus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
23,330
fair fuks to em.

:D
 

Astral Peaks

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2010
Messages
25,986
Sorry for the OP heading. If Sync could modify the title please it would be appreciated.
No worries.

I think you need to "Report" your own OP to get a mod to edit?
 

ShoutingIsLeadership

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
50,459
So you want an a la carte approach to governance? Hardly a surprise, coming from you.

I note you failed to answer my other questions:




Go on Tony, have a bash at those.....
Listening to this on PK Today, now; it's the same old story of Irish governments ignoring their clear legal obligations. Apparently this directive dates back over 30 years, and it was clear in 2006 (following the UK losing a similar case) that Ireland was not in compliance with the directive.

Jimmy Kelly from UNITE reckons there is a cost of 13m per year involved - perhaps an overall capital cost of close to 300m, I think.
 

DCon

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
5,901
So the Irish government (past, present and permanent (civil service)) ignored their obligations under EU law.

Yet they (government and civil service) will all receive full pensions.

Ironic!
 

Spanner Island

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
24,203
There is an EU directive requiring the state to make sure workers are protected. The state didn't do it. Not sure of the specifics.
Does the fact that the state is bankrupt make a difference or are we all going to be taxed more or have the state borrow more on our behalf in order to make up the deficits?

Whatever happens it looks like Joe Soap taxpayer gets screwed... yet again...

Pensions are a total scam.
 
Top