Merchant Navy Officers

[mnoadmin]

Salaams
this is the second letter I received and is a response from the Union, in a way?

I have just had a reply from the Union and would you believe it any future discretionary pension increase for the 'Old Section' is on hold until further notice. You may remember a couple of years ago there was a difference of opinion between the Employees representatives and the Employers representatives about the interpretation of the 'New Section' rules with regard to whether it was incumbent on the Employers to make up any shortfall in the 'New Section'. As you will guess Numast said it was and the Ship owners said it was not. The Trustees of the MNOPF have been trying for nearly two years to get a High Court Ruling on the interpretation of the Rules. Now one of the Lawyers acting for the Ship owners has lodged a claim that the 'Old' & 'New' sections of the MNOPF are one of the same thing. You can see where this is leading from a mile away. The Ship owners as is their norm do not like parting with money so they want to see the nice big surplus in the 'Old Section' being used to reduce the deficit in the 'New Section'. It also makes clearer the reason why we only got a 3% increase last time when there were sufficient funds to give at least 5% or more. Its almost, as if the Ship owners nominated Trustees have been running a separate agenda and they seem to have succeeded. No increase in pensions for us then until the Lawyer removes his claim or when the High Court has made its ruling. So, current surplus in 'Old Section,' approx £176m, deficit in 'New Section' £194m as of 31/03/2003.
Ship owners get their way and hey presto surplus in 'Old Sect.' zero, deficit in 'New Sect.' only £18m. If Judge says pay up £18m is a lot less than £194m!!! If the Judge says you do not have to pay then where does that leave us all!!! Hey, we thought we had some control over our Pension Fund, it don't seem like that now.

[mnoadmin]

Salaams,
after considerable thought I've come to the conclusion that the ship owners advisers have left ours, whoever they are, looking completely incompetent. Its a heads they can't fail to win and tails we lose, yet again. It takes, not a lot of thought, bearing in mind the make up of the Old Section that if increases had been given on an annual basis, as it should have, the question of a surplus would never have arisen thereby bypassing the current soft shoe shuffle being performed by our ex admirable employers.
Given time, which is what the owners are banking on and which some of us have not got a lot of, the Old Section can only continue to appreciate and by the tme it gets a judgement the transferrance of money, should that be the ruling will wipe out any deficit in the New Section, the Old Section members, sorry lads just pull your belts in, we in the New have got used to it?
FinF

[mnoadmin]

Salaams,
Quote from the August 2004 union 'Telegraph' newspaper. "A crucial court case to determine which groups of employers are liable for the deficit in the MNOPF is to take place in March next year, Council members heard last month. Mr McEwan said three or four days had been set aside for the hearing, which will take place later than hoped because of a shortage of judges with suitable experience to hear the case."
Would I be being too cynical to suggest that it has nothing to do with the Bill about to go before Parliament to make those funds which have a surplus being made responsible for those with a deficit? Its a pity, and I agree hindsight is a wonderful thing, that some of the surpluses of the "Old Fund" had not been paid out to the funds members before this case ever went to court, the old fund not being affected by the vagaries of the stockmarket.
BR Fred