Save university pensions, and save the planet is a crowdfunded legal action separate from the main UCU pension dispute. It may be of interest to members and non-members who are in the USS scheme. Updates published on behalf of the team at savepensionsandplanet.org.
Dear Friends and Colleague,
We are all making history together!. It took up most of last week, and we went overtime, but the Court of Appeal heard our landmark case against the USS directors, and now will deliberate for a judgment. We are determined that the USS directors must answer for their conduct, in cutting the pension (when there was never a deficit), and in placing their pro-fossil fuel values over members’ views, even when it’s a massive risk of financial harm to our future.
We still absolutely need to hit our funding target, so please visit the CrowdJustice site, and consider giving £10 – or the average pledge of £40. We’ve worked our socks, shoes, and shoelaces off because we believe you have the absolute right to social security and a living planet, and we’re so grateful for your support, and that of all university branches. With everyone’s help, we’re nearly there, so please spare the cost of a sandwich or coffee for all of your colleagues’ welfare.
Main arguments in the Court of Appeal
You can watch the full 2 and a half days on YouTube, and lots more will be written soon, but the very basic points are:
- we showed how the very purpose of the company is to provide benefits “solely or primarily for the benefit of university teachers or other staff of comparable status” (article 71 of USS Ltd) and so under the Companies Act 2006 s 172(2) the directors must act for purposes directed to the benefit of university staff. That is why beneficiaries have standing in a common law derivative claim;
- all our claims were to remedy serious injustices: the directors were not protecting university staff benefits when they set a zero-growth assumption for 30 years, predicted deficits, and drove cuts, and no it did not matter that they paid actuaries to go along with that. The cuts were discriminatory and USS directors should have cut costs, not the pension, even if there had been a deficit (which there never was);
- our fossil fuel divestment claim was grounded in the serious risk to the fund, and despite USS ago coming up with a fossil fuel strategy 20 years ago, nothing was done to divest. The directors have utterly failed beneficiaries, ignored their wishes, and showed bog-standard, business-as-usual complacency all along;
- the court vigorously questioned everything in our submissions, and the other side’s main argument was “nothing to see here”. USS directors had actuaries to sign off all their valuations, there just was no evidence of discrimination, costs at USS were normal, and there was no evidence that fossil fuels really do carry risks – USS was actually at the forefront of climate policy. Who would’ve thought!
So, the hearing was hotly contested, and the judges are left with a difficult set of decisions. But we should all be absolutely optimistic because what we have achieved is phenomenal already. We:
- shone a torch on the directors’ wrongdoing, that the whole university sector, including VCs and managers in every university could see, and the USS directors could not squirm away from with dodgy, condescending PR;
- after we started, USS changed its growth assumptions (from 0.0% to 0.29% and now to 1.8% above CPI inflation for 30 years) and started reporting surpluses;
- the failed “CEO” Bill Galvin announced his resignation *sad face*;
- with Galvin gone, when we got leave to the Court of Appeal, the USS directors pronounced they would reverse the cuts;
- the USS press releases said they would “examine” divesting fossil fuels.
Sounds like we already won, but we need a precedent that protects everyone, and our retirement on a living planet.
Win or lose, what might happen? Whoever prevails, there could very well be an appeal. If we win, or if they win, either side could appeal the judgment to the UK Supreme Court. Furthermore, because our claims on fossil fuels are grounded in human rights, we could apply to the European Court of Human Rights, contending (if we lost) that the UK justice system fails to protect the right to life (article 2) if it fails to interpret directors’ duties in a way that takes account of what is needed under the Paris Agreement to stop the planet burning. In short, the directors must pay regard to financial risks on the assumption that international law will be complied with (not violated), and that means everyone cutting toxic emissions by 45% by 2030, and 100% by 2050. That will destroy fossil fuel profits, and the courts must understand that. Whatever happens, we will use every option available to hold the failed USS directors to account, drive reform, protect your social security, and save our planet.
So please visit the CrowdJustice site again, and thanks so much for everything you do to keep our universities alive!
Best wishes, Ewan and Neil