23. Defendants further aver that the categorization of an occupational pension scheme as either employer sponsored scheme or master trust scheme has nothing whatsoever to do with the contributions made towards the scheme or who contributes to that scheme or who sets up that scheme, but rather, is connected to the scope of membership of the scheme. In point of fact, section 211 explicitly defines “employer sponsored scheme” to be a single employer scheme whose membership is limited to the employees of the sponsoring company and only its associated companies, whilst “master trust scheme” is defined as a multiple employer scheme whose membership is open to employees of more than one employer, self-employed persons etc. 24. The definition of “employer sponsored scheme” does not give the power or right to an employer to impose a trust on its employees. Plaintiff’s persistence in alluding to the phrase “employer sponsored” as an indication that same gives the Government the power to appoint trustees, is ignorant and misguided. 25. Defendants aver that it will be grossly contrary to the scheme of Act 766, its history and defeatist of the mischief that Act 766 was intended to cure, for government unilaterally to impose the choice of a single trustee on all employees in the public sector. - Statement of Defence of 12 Labour Unions in 2nd Tier Pension Case
Posted on: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 17:51:51 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015