Public sector pay- outs: what the news reports don’t say…
Kerry Norval, solicitor in the Employment Group at Dundas & Wilson, examines the rules around public sector pay-outs. S
ubstantial pay-outs to senior BBC employees have once again raised concerns
about the impact of public bodies on the public purse. In fact, the reality is very different to the pictures the media portray. Whilst exit deals are commonly used in the private sector, especially at a senior level, they are very much the exception in the public sector. However, since private sector deals are confidential, they do not tend to attract the same degree of media coverage.
The influence of the media
The difficulty with the media simply publishing headline figures is the failure to understand what lies behind them. There seems to be an almost automatic assumption that large pay- outs made to exiting employees are attributable to the need for speed, as well as greed.
Yet that is not typically the case. What such stories fail to report is that in the vast majority of situations, public bodies may be contractually required to make such payments.
For example, in a redundancy situation where an employee has a long period of service, a substantial element of the package is likely to be an enhanced redundancy payment, in addition to the employee’s notice period and outstanding holidays. If a public body failed to meet these terms it could be in breach of contract and at risk of legal challenge.
Not only can litigation be expensive in relation to the legal costs incurred, but it is also costly in terms of management time and the potential disruption to the public body’s services and workforce more generally.
Of course, there will be occasions when there is a need to offer an exit package outwith the standard redundancy scenario. In this situation, not only will the package include contractual payments, it will also include an element of compensation for loss of office. Such amounts can be more difficult to quantify.
Public sector perspective
These concerns are not unique to the public sector. Private sector employers are under similar pressures to act reasonably or face scrutiny from shareholders. In fact, as a result
78 | public sector executive Sep/Oct 13
From left: Former BBC director general Mark Thompson; Marcus Agius, former chairman of the BBC Executive Board Remuneration Committee; Sir Michael Lyons, former Trust chairman; Nicholas Kroll, director, BBC Trust; Lucy Adams, HR Director, BBC; Lord Patten, Chairman, BBC Trust; and Anthony Fry, BBC Trustee, sitting before the Commons Public Accounts Committee.
of recent changes to directors’ remuneration reports, listed companies now face increased levels of accountability to divulge details of termination payments.
Where the differences lie, however, is in the additional scrutiny that public sector bodies have to face: the concern that decisions may be subject to judicial review, for example, or the danger that details of exit packages will be disclosed as a result of freedom of information (FOI) requests.
To date the courts have made it clear that they will only interfere in a public authority’s contractual commitments in very limited circumstances.
Whilst the nuances of judicial review differ north and south of the border, the principle remains largely the same. Unless a public body acts outwith its statutory powers, its decisions will not be overturned.
Likewise, there are exceptions that apply when dealing with FOI requests, which can prove to be a useful tool in ensuring the circumstances surrounding an employee’s exit are kept confidential – the most important being that a public sector employer will not usually need to divulge information which relates to another individual’s personal data.
Steps to take
So, what can a public sector organisation do to ensure that any exit deal offered is deemed acceptable?
Ultimately, what will be regarded as reasonable will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the individual case.
However, there are a number of factors that should be considered: the employee’s role and performance, their employment prospects going forward, what rights they may have to compensation if they were to later raise a claim, as well as the cost to the public body of defending any litigation.
Provided an organisation keeps such factors in its contemplation - and ensures that any decision taken is rational and evidence based - any package offered should be deemed fair and proportionate.
Whilst this may not stop the media interest, it should make any story less newsworthy.
Kerry Norval
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@publicsectorexecutive.com
© PA and PA Wire
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84