TA Pensions. Finian Mason - What happened?

Discussion in 'Army Pay, Claims & JPA' started by BuggerAll, Feb 21, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. BuggerAll

    BuggerAll LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Finain Mason was due to go to go to court on 11 Feb 05 in a bid to get the MOD to pay pensions to the TA. Does anyone know what happened? This is from the DT but they have not published any results:

    "MoD in court over TA pensions

    A major in the Territorial Army is taking the Ministry of Defence to the High Court today to prove that he and his 40,000 comrades are not "casual labour".

    Major Finian Manson, 54, is seeking a ruling that as a TA soldier he should be regarded as a part-time worker and entitled to a pension provision for the time he has sacrificed in supporting his full-time brethren.

    An accountant and former company director from west London, Major Manson has served in many different units during his time in the TA, including service in Bosnia.

    Most recently he has been involved in supplying logistical support to British troops serving in Iraq."
  2. Don't know what happened but Finian is a one man awkward squad, with a very fixed view of the MOD. He is not the sort of chap to be pushed around.
  3. He's got a point. I hope the STABS get a pension. Good luck to him.
  4. Copyright 2005 The Press Association Limited
    Press Association

    February 17, 2005, Thursday


    348 words


    John Aston, PA

    A long-serving Territorial Army major who served in Bosnia today lost a High Court battle for the right to a military pension.

    Lawyers for Major Finian Manson asked a judge to rule that, although a part-time soldier, he was not "casual labour", as the Ministry of Defence contended.

    But Mr Justice Moses, sitting in London, said: "In my view the nature of the service performed by the claimant is not only part-time but is also casual."

    The judge rejected arguments that, under EU law, he should be treated "no less favourably" than full-time members of the armed forces who did have pension rights.

    Ms Philippa Watson, appearing for Major Manson, 54, said he was entitled to equality of treatment with respect to pay and conditions under the Part-time Workers Directive.

    The judge rejected the submissions, saying the pattern of work of TA volunteers was "occasional and random" and there were wide fluctuations in the amount of training they undertook.

    Some did not do the minimum number of days, but nevertheless were not subject to discipline as a result.

    A member of the TA for more than 33 years, Major Manson has been in many different TA units and served in Bosnia.

    An accountant and former company director from west London, he is currently in a specialist unit at the Royal Artillery Central Volunteer Headquarters and could go on serving up to the age of 60.

    Under his terms and conditions, Major Manson is currently committed to 15 days a year of "in camp" training and four days "out of camp".

    Ms Watson said he had completed at least 1,142 days service, which was considerably in excess of the minimum requirement.

    She submitted Major Manson was entitled to the protection of the court and to have the Directive enforced.

    The Government was not at liberty to deny him a pension on the basis that his service amounted to "casual labour".

    Rejecting her submissions, the judge also ruled the case should never have come to the court for judicial review as it raised issues of private law, not public law.

    Major Manson is considering whether to appeal.

    February 18, 2005
  5. Now Then, did you expect anything else from such a corrupt judiciary which bends it's knee to Blair's corrupt government? No neither did I but I sing the praises of Major Mason who took this challenge on, for without people like him the U.K. is lost. What now? Well I assume all those casual labourers from the ranks of the T.A. who risk life and limb for Ghengis Blair and his followers, can now withdraw their casual labour and refuse to go to places like Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Not even part-time soldiers eh? mm. I hope he takes them to the European Court of Human Rights and that he or his lawyers examine the recent McDonalds ruling regarding legal aid wnd see if there is something there for them. Makes you proud don't it knowing that you are fighting for such a caring country. 8)
    Thank god I and millions of others don't live their anymore.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Gosh , so getting shot at or deployed into a dangerous sh*thole is casual?

    I'm sure that there are wider ramifications of this ruling, and I am sure some bright individual will spot them.
  7. "The judge rejected the submissions, saying the pattern of work of TA volunteers was "occasional and random" and there were wide fluctuations in the amount of training they undertook.

    Some did not do the minimum number of days, but nevertheless were not subject to discipline as a result."
    1. They cannot be casual as they are employed and have to pass courses to stay employed. Casual labour by its vey definition is where you pay someone on an ad hoc basis without any benefits or contract of employment. TA soldiers have a contract of employment.
    2. To say that TA soldiers who do not fulfil their training requirement are not disciplined is arrant nonsense. What would happen if a TA soldier was ordered to go to Iraq and refused. Those who do not normally fulfil their training requirement without just cause are usually binned. In any case they do not get their bounty so are de facto disciplined.
    Obviously this judge was being handled by the government. John Deed is not so far from the truth. Isn't it strange how any case that might cost the MOD money is never lost by the governement?
    The real tragedy and upshot of this particular case is that it gives all TA soldiers the right to cherry pick what they might do without fear of retribution. Would you like to go to afghanistan? Nah I will do my two weeks camp here thanks. Still it might make ghengis Blair less willing to shoot off to every war that W wants him to.
  8. msr

    msr LE

    Only if you are shot at during the weekends ;)

  9. Anybody know were the link is for the transcript of this case decision is?

    Tried searching for it on the Internet but...

    Grateful if anyone could post the link on here.

  10. Can't do the link just yet as it is not yet posted.
    However this might suffice:

    "Administrative law – Administrative Court – Jurisdiction – Part-time employees
    – Prevention of less favourable treatment – Challenge to compatibility of
    implementing Regulations with Council Directive – Service in Territorial Army
    – Appropriate forum for complaint – Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less
    Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, regs 8, 13(2) –
    Council Directive (EC) 97/81, Framework Agreement, cl 2(2).
    Regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable
    Treatment) Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, so far as material, provides: ‘A
    part-time worker has the right not to be treated by his employer less
    favourably than the employer treats a comparable full-time worker … ’
    Regulation 8 of the Regulations, so far as material, provides: ‘(1) Subject to
    regulation 7(5), a worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal
    that his employer has infringed a right conferred on him by regulation 5 … ’
    Regulation 13(2) provides ‘These Regulations shall not have effect in relation
    to service as a member of the reserve forces in so far as that service consists
    in undertaking training obligations (a) under section 38, 40 or 41 of the
    Reserve Forces Act 1980, (b) under section 22 of the Reserve Forces Act
    1996, (c) pursuant to regulations made under section 4 of the Reserve Forces
    Act 1996, or consists in undertaking voluntary training or duties under section
    27 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.’
    Clause 2(2) of the Framework Agreement in the annex to, and implemented
    by, Council Directive (EC) 97/81, so far as material, provides: ‘Member States
    … may, for objective reasons, exclude wholly or partly from the terms of this
    Agreement part-time workers who work on a casual basis … ’
    The claimant was a Major in the Territorial Army. He complained to an
    employment tribunal that he was being denied a pension by the operation of
    reg 13(2) of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment)
    Regulations 2000, SI 2000/1551, contrary to ‘European law’. The Regulations
    were introduced to give effect to the framework agreement contained in the
    annex to, and implemented by, Council Directive (EC) 97/81. The tribunal
    dismissed the complaint and the claimant appealed to the Employment
    Appeal Tribunal. Before the appeal tribunal heard the appeal, however, he
    also applied for judicial review. The appeal was later dismissed.
    Issues arose as to whether the claimant was asserting private law rights over
    which the Administrative Court had no jurisdiction, whether the Directive was
    of direct effect and whether reg 13(2) was compatible with the Directive,
    having regard to cl 2(2) of the framework agreement in the annex thereto.
    The application would be dismissed.
    The claimant sought to assert private law rights over which the Administrative
    Court had no jurisdiction.
    It would be absurd if the applicant could hop between the tribunal and the
    Administrative Court. By reg 8, the employment tribunal had jurisdiction to
    determine a party’s rights under the Regulations. No other forum was
    appropriate. It was irrelevant that the claimant challenged the compatibility of
    reg 13(2) with the Directive since, applying settled principles, it was obliged to
    apply domestic and Community law. Furthermore, the claimant was relying on
    rights conferred by the Regulations that were to be construed in a manner
    compatible with the Directive; he had not brought proceedings to quash the
    Regulations. Finally, the Administrative Court would be ill-equipped to deal
    with the issues of fact that would arise if reg 13(2) was found to be
    incompatible with the Directive.
    Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority
    (Teaching) [1986] 2 All ER 584 and Biggs v Somerset CC [1996] 2 All ER 734
    applied; McLaren v Home Office [1990] COD 257 and Trustees of the Dennis
    Rye Pension Fund and another v Sheffield CC [1997] 4 All ER 747
  11. I think Major Mason will get in touch with you if you ask nicely TZA ;)
  12. Could someone translate that into english for me? My head nearly exploded. The way I see it if we are casual labour then if I really don't fancy playing in the sand then I don't have to go?? Hmmm could someone pass down to PSI's and TM's that outwith our minimum commitment everything else is on a volunteer basis rather than a YOU WILL attend young man.

    Not that i'm complaning. If the brown envelope arrives I'm going and it would take alot to stop me I just think its a bit of a double standard???
  13. Fatcakes,

    Yep, thats about the height of it.

    I think the PSI/TM could only put you on a '252' for "failing to attend a duty when it was his/her duty to attend" if it is one of your obligatory duties.
    If it is a 'voluntary duty' then you can tell him to stick it where the sun dosen't shine.
    An employer cannot discipline a casual worker for not attending for the "casual" work.