An update on the petition challenging the Salvation Army’s (SA) non-payment of pensions and other retirement benefits to its former officers.
As part of this ongoing campaign initial complaints to the Pension Ombudsman were filed in May 2020 and since then a growing number of complaints from other former officers have been submitted. The legal advice we have received is to await the outcome of the Ombudsman’s investigation before pursuing any necessary legal action.
The Ombudsman has referred the case to the Specialist Jurisdiction team “because it potentially raises important and complex points of law and regulation which may have wider implications”. The review of the complaint should be carried out by May/June 2021. If you know a former Officer, please forward this update to them and encourage them to submit a complaint by sending me an email so that I can forward the relevant information: philip.mountain@talktalk.net
It is clear that the Salvation Army Act (of Parliament) 1963, Section 3(2)(c) enables a settlement to be made to former officers for the pension value and other retirement benefits. The Pension Schemes Act 1993 legislated that ‘short period” of service MUST be paid. Recognition of this general practice was also enshrined in law in the Social Security Act 1973. The fact is that the Officers Pension Fund (OPFB) Board CHOOSES to withhold a pension and other retirement benefits from the majority of former Officers.
This begs the question Where is the money from the annual accruals made for officers in the Pension Fund? How the OPFB for over 57 years has justified that a former Officer’s years of service result in a zero value can only be deemed CRIMINAL. Even from the year 2000 policy statement by General John Gowans (following an International Commission on Officership) that “All territories will make provision for the payment of a termination grant to officers who resign and will work towards setting up a portable pension or equivalent scheme for officers” the OPFB has continued to DENY Officers their past service years. Over this period, this STOLEN money must now be well into the MILLIONS (£40million or £50million?).
The General (International leader of SA) has been grossly negligent in fulfilling his responsibilities for the material well-being of officers (SA ACT 1980, Section 5(1)(b)). The intent of General Arnold Brown as explained in his Foreword to the SA Act 1980 was to bring the language of the SA’s constitution up to date. The clarity expressed here between the responsibility for spiritual well-being as distinct from material well-being puts the denial of accrued pension values straight onto the Generals desk!!
In April 2017 (17 years after the policy statement in 2000!) the DIRECTORS of the SA Trustee Company (SATCO) introduced a DISCRETIONARY policy that officers having served 11 years or more should receive an equivalent pension transfer value for their service years upon leaving. (Note this policy does not apply to officers who resigned before April 2017). The 11 years’ service or more TOTALLY disregards both the Social Security Act 1973 & Pensions Act 1993 where a short period is after 5 years according to the 1973 Act and then after 2 years in the 1993 Act. Putting aside why it took 17 years to act when the SA Act 1963 through section 3(2)(c) had enshrined in the powers of the OPFB to so act highlights the contempt by the SA management. The serious question this raises is, “Why is this policy, clearly a pension matter, not within the role and responsibility of the OPFB? Why have the Directors of SATCO acted in this way? Where is the General? The PRETENCE is condoned and rampant. Should the service years be less than 11 years – where have the pension fund accruals of the last 11 years or less gone? It again suggests the money is STOLEN. Note also that information about the policy is “not available for general circulation” to serving officers, the very same people who may be affected by it. This is behaviour more fitted to a SECRET SOCIETY. Furthermore, even serving Officers are not given copies of the current rules of the pension scheme despite the legislation of 1996 requiring this. For details refer to “http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/1655/regulation/8/made Equally shocking is the discretionary nature of this policy deliberately making it possible to withhold the pension in cases of perceived bad conduct. What kind of pension scheme does that? This is an organisation which it seems cannot resist a chance to not comply with the general law!
The OPFB appear to be morally corrupt and negligent in fully complying with not just the 1963 Act but the spirit to be current with the real world and not to evade the issues of general legislation. I am reminded of a piece of music I once performed by the American composer Charles Ives “The Unanswered Question” (well worth looking up) in which the trumpet repeatedly sounds forth a question, only to be met with unequivocal evasiveness on the part of the responding string ensemble. The General has been challenged and questioned repeatedly but is silent in discharging the required, legislated responsibilities on ‘material well-being’. This is all the more surprising (or not) since the present General, Brain Peddle, is a Canadian. Some years ago, former Officers in Canada won a High Court battle forcing the SA to pay pensions to its former Officers!
The SA has now promised a further review of the management of the pension fund, including consideration of pensions for former officers. We are told this is to be an independent review conducted by experts outside of the Salvation Army. What we are not told is who will pay the bill for this (“He who pays the piper calls the tune”) and we can assume there will not be any representation of former Officers on the panel! In fact the deputy leader of the SA in the Uk & Eire (Chief Secretary Lee Graves) has been emphatic in making it clear just a few months ago that “whatever emerges from that group… will affect the future not the past”. In other words, he contradicted the other information given to us about the review, that it would include consideration of pensions for former Officers. I think we can take this to mean these people are not to be trusted and that the review will focus on arrangements for providing all Officers, who resign in the future, with a portable pension (which is welcome news) but will not consider the same arrangements for those who have resigned in the past. This brings me back to where I began:
The Salvation Army Pension Scandal: “Love Thy Neighbour” but not Thy Former Colleague!