Bank employees set to sue over cuts in bonuses
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Britain's biggest banks face a multimillion-pound legal action brought by their own employees to force them to pay bonuses, The Independent has learnt. Claims are being prepared by lawyers representing scores of bankers working across the financial sector who have been made redundant or told they will miss out on awards this year.
The final bill in compensation and legal fees is expected to reach hundreds of millions of pounds. No bank will escape unscathed but state-aided banks such as Royal Bank of Scotland and Northern Rock, told by the Government to axe bonuses, are expected to face the largest number of claims. Barclays which has not received any bailout but announced big bonus cuts yesterday will also be in the litigation firing line.
News of the litigation came on a day the Government and the Tories both tried to apply moral pressure on bank executives to cut back on bonus payments. The Prime Minister's spokesman said he was "very angry" about suggestions RBS – 68 per cent owned by the taxpayer – was preparing to pay bonuses of up to £1bn to staff.
Yvette Cooper, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: "City bankers who think sweeping bonuses are justified this year must be on another planet."
David Cameron, the Tory leader, said: "The bankers have to have a bit of a 'smell-the-coffee moment' and recognise, 'Actually, hold on, we wouldn't be here, we wouldn't have jobs, we wouldn't get anything were it not for the taxpayer standing behind us'."
The UK's chief City regulator, the Financial Services Authority, is investigating pay and benefits structures in the City. It is due to publish the results of the review next month.
Ministers are also said to be considering placing a £25,000 limit on cash bonuses for bankers, but admit such a rule would be difficult to enforce.
Barclays, which did not take public money during the bailout of the banks last year, said yesterday it was cutting its bonus payments for 2008 by 48 per cent compared to the previous year. John Varley, the bank's chief executive, said: "The more senior the people, the greater the reduction [in bonuses would be," with Barclays' investment banking operation believed to be suffering particularly large cuts.
But bankers are challenging both the failure to pay so-called "guaranteed" bonuses and discretionary award schemes that pay out millions of pounds each year in recognition of employee contributions to the business.
Ronnie Fox, one of the City's leading employment lawyers, is representing a number of high-profile bankers who have instructed him to prepare legal action to safeguard their bonuses.
Mr Fox, a member of the Law Society's remuneration committee, told The Independent: "I have been advising senior bankers about their positions in the banks and the payment of bonuses. Bankers are now talking about suing for these bonuses. Some of them are very concerned and upset. The most aggrieved people are those who performed well and did make significant profits for the banks but have lost bonuses and sometimes their jobs."
He said one senior executive he is advising was made redundant when his department suffered big losses. "But he had devised a strategy which has turned losing positions into profits. Now he his taking legal action," said Mr Fox.
Senior board members in charge of bank strategy will not able to bring claims because they cannot claim to have to have contributed to a profitable business. But managing directors, vice-presidents and associates working in profitable departments such as emerging markets, fixed interest and currency trading, will have much stronger cases.
Lawrence Davies, who has advised senior bankers in seeking or accepting discretionary seven-figure bonuses, said: "Good performance should be rewarded. Even in failing companies there are expert 'firefighters' working fanatically hard to prevent financial disaster. These people should be rewarded for their efforts. Those culpable senior executive should be dismissed without any financial recompense."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
It is also certainly the Government's right to impose windfall taxes and share out the pain to individuals who are in receipt of bonus's in bankrupt institutions supported by taxpayer's money, as it is to strengthen laws to ensure the strict interpretation of fiduciary responsibility - when their bonuses are based on short term profits unrelated to the long term health of the institutions they worked for, it would seem difficult for them to prove that they behaved responsibly.
Paying out the bonuses and retrospectively taxing the bonuses paid for the last 5 years, at, say, 95%, would seem to be fair all around.
why should we as a country pay a lot of tax /vat ect to pay the top bankers millions of pounds so they can live a good life style just bacilly have what they want, they were the one's who lost all that money i thought THAT IS THEY HAD A GOOD YEAR THEY WOULD RECIVE A GOOD BONUS THAT MEANS IF THEY HAVE MADE MONEY FOR THEY COMPANY BUT IT DOESNT LOOK LIKE THEY HAVE MADE ANY MONEY FOR THE COMPANY THEY JUST GAMBLIED IT ALL AWAY.
STEVEN BARNETT
A system where the incompetent can sue for money they simply don't deserve, that has to be paid by the people (tax payer) who have suffered due to the aforementioned incompetence!
Nationalise the banks RIGHT NOW & chuck these useless parasites into the nearest sewer, where they belong with all the other bilge rats.
Petulance is not going to solve anything and a 'bonus' is just that.
Also, to use the justicfication of 'working hard' is a complete insult. Everyone 'works hard', my builder works hard, but unlike this bunch of clowns, hasn't had his view of the world and his rights warped by years of an ego-fuelled run-away boom.
It didn't break, you broke it, now face the consequences, the rest of have to.
Retroactively changing compensation plans for work already completed is a great way to save money and build trust. Let's imagine what the unions would say if their employees were told: "Okay, the building is built, so now we are going to pay you 10 pounds per hour for the past year of work, rather than the previously agreed 20."
The owners then say that they will reduce the pay they gave to the electricians, glasiers and plumbers - who did their jobs to a high standard, using quality materials and who were on time and under budget - because they should "share the pain".
Now if they say this about FUTURE pay, that is one thing. But if they say they are going to pay less than agreed for work already completed, do the electricians, glasiers and plumbers have a grievance?
As I understand it, the bankers' view is the banks can't afford to sack them so the bonuses will be paid. We certainly can afford to sack them. We can't afford their cockups and we can't afford their bonuses. So sack the lot. There will be plenty of punters out there who need a job.
What is needed is a set of lawyers working for us taxpayers who have imagination as you may be absolutely sure there is a way we can prevent these gamblers stealing our tax money for their yachts and mansions etc.Lawyers will know the means but currently it seems they are all working for the crooks.
I too had suggested recently there should be a new tax band for these greedy b's of 100%. Or perhaps we'll be kind and make it 99%. Anything less would be an insult to us taxpayers. Another solution might be enforce foreclosure on all their mortgages so the state owns all their ill-gotten-gained property.
We can't expect Gordon Brown to come up with a ban on the bonuses.He only reacts to events when it's too late. Where are Vince Cable and Ken Clarke?