Originally Posted by
eglnyt
Callyoushortly, it's on page 20 of the 2008 NATS Annual Report. Before you get too excited you need to read on a few sentences because the next paragraph contains the 112% figure and the triennial review. There was an explanation for this difference on NATSNET shortly after the report was published so it isn't new information.
eglnyt, I'm sure it was a typo but I think you mean page
30 of the Annual Report.
For those interested, the relevant paragraphs read as follows:
Pensions
At 31 March 2008, measured under international accounting standards, the pension scheme had a surplus of assets over liabilities of £413.5m compared with a surplus of £238.6m at 31 March 2007. The £174.9m increase in the surplus is due mainly to a decrease in the present value of the obligations arising from an increase in the prescribed discount rate from 5.2% to 6.2%. The scheme’s assets increased by just £13.1m or 0.5% to £2,846.2m in the year.
The group made cash contributions to the scheme of 12.2% (2007: 12.2%) of pensionable pay during the year giving a cash cost of £37.7m (2007: £32.6m). From 1 April 2008, cash contributions to the scheme will be paid at an annual effective rate of 20.0% of pensionable pay. This follows the outcome of the triennial valuation performed as of 31 December 2006, which reported a surplus of assets over liabilities of 112% and an increase in the future service cost to 37.3% of pensionable pay (from 26.8% at 31 December 2003).
The group is currently engaged in discussions with its Trades Unions on proposals to reduce the cost and risk of future pension provision.
NATS employees are unfortunately enduring the now-frequent concerted attack on employee pension provision by a company anxious to be seen trying to protect its future contribution liability. In one corporate sense, this is understandable but if fundamental changes are to be made, then they have to be convincingly and honestly put and appraised. There is little point in securing corporate financial benefits in a service industry if you totally p*ss off your workforce in the process.
As an outsider (but one who has witnessed similar shenanigans from his own one-time employer), I have great sympathy with what you are trying to protect. IMHO, you need to have union representation singing from the same hymn-sheet and whom you trust, together with (more importantly) specialist pension advisers who can see through the smokescreen that the employer will inevitably put up, in order to try and secure an advantageous agreement.
Having seen similar situations, therefore, my humble advice to you would be to nail your Prospect Reps to the path you wish them to follow and ensure you/they have the best possible pension advice to enable you to make an informed decision before any ballot takes place.
Sorry if I am intruding - sorry also if I am stating the bl**ding obvious - but I feel extremely strongly about such raids on employee benefits by commercial managers who, as their first priority, have their own agendas to follow. We always used to tag them with Peter Carrington's phrase, "Duplicitous B*stards" - until or unless proved otherwise, of course ...
Good luck.
JD
