Page 2 The Retirees' Newsletter
The Faculty and Librarian Retirees' Association, University of Windsor, Windsor, Canada
Vol.VII , No.3, June. 1997
THE MINIMUM GUARANTEED INCREASE HAS NOW BEEN
CLARIFIED; SKINNER OUTLINED THE DETAILS TO OUR MAY MEETING
THE UNCERTAINTY OVER THE PROPOSED 2.5 PER CENT INCREASE in Minimum Guaranteed Pensions has cleared. Jim Skinner, from the University's Human Resources, explained the latest position to the membership at the Association's Spring Meeting on May 1st.
THE PROBLEM AROSE following negotiations last summer. A proposal had been agreed to by the University and the Faculty Association, to reduce the surplus accumulated in the Pension Fund. Under the proposal, the retirees' share of the surplus reduction was to take the form of a 2.5 percent increase in the levels of their respective Minimum Guaranteed Pensions.
THE PROPOSAL for the 2.5 percent increase, however, ran into immediate problems. These stemmed from an existing ruling of Revenue Canada which dates back to its Information Circular 72-13RE of December, 1988.
Under that ruling, Revenue Canada does not allow a minimum guaranteed pension to increase by more than the cumulative increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from the member's date of retirement. Applying that criterion, however, would have rendered a number of our retirees "ineligible" for the full 2.5 percent increase. (See The Newsletters of February and April, 1997).
SO THE PARTIES WENT BACK TO THE BARGAINING TABLE, and a new position was hammered out, the essence of which is as follows. Most retirees, including those receiving their Money Purchase pensions as well as those receiving their Guaranteed Minimum, will receive the 2.5% increase in their level of Minimum Guaranteed pension forthwith.
(FOR THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY RECEIVING THEIR MONEY PURCHASE PENSION, of course, the amount of their current pensions will not be affected. For those receiving their Minimum Guarantee, the increase will be reflected in the level of their current pensions and will be retroactive to July 1st, 1996). Mr. Skinner said the estimated time of implementation was the 1st of June. IN A SMALLER NUMBER OF CASES, the Revenue Canada restriction will mean a partial increase immediately with future incremental increases when the C.P.I. increases more than 2%. Additionally it was agreed that the parties would jointly explore the possibility of challenging Revenue Canada's position in imposing a limit on increases to minimum guaranteed benefits.
POST SCRIPT TO THE ABOVE: DO YOU EVER GET CURIOUS ABOUT DATES?
In my case, the cheque from our pension administrator, Canada Trust, (being the retroactive payment to me going back to July, 1996), arrived by mail to my home on Monday, June 9th, 1997. The Payment Statement which came with it listed the "Payment Date" as May 30, 1997; and the cheque itself was dated May 30, 1997. Both those suggest to me that that money was meant to be available to me on May 30th. But I further noted that the terse (read "useless") note which Canada Trust sent with the cheque, was dated as late as June 3rd, 1997. Then the envelope the cheque came to me in was postmarked in London, Ont., on June 5th, 1997, and ultimately I received it on June 9th. I naturally am curious to know who was the beneficiary of that money for the ten-day period between the "payment date" and the date the money finally came into my possession. Or am I all wet? ( Probably another reason why we could use a committee within the Association as discussed on page 1). Editor
Page one (Issue index)
Next page