How can companies best protect themselves against possible liability claims in occupational pension schemes?

Rate this post

Employers have double wage costs due to company pension scheme ?!
The case:Employee loses around 90% of his company pension Anna M. (name changed) had asked her employer to invest part of her salary in a company pension scheme on her behalf (deferred compensation). After 6,230 euros had been transferred to a “company pension scheme” by the employer within three years, the employment relationship ended. The company pension scheme reported that 639 euros of “her converted salary” were still there – the rest had been used for costs (e.g. commissions). Before the LAG Munich, the employer was ordered to pay the employee the missing 90% (again) as wages. For the employer, however, this “experience with financial sales” will be even more expensive due to levies, because social insurance will still be due, which can no longer be charged retroactively to the employee after three months. The employer saw a 20% tax advantage in the company pension scheme – he had not been advised about the risk of paying 120% and more on balance in the end.
Unconstitutional cost burden
In the case of endowment insurance, the intermediary receives a commission as part of the acquisition costs. In the century before last, the actuary August Zillmer introduced a method according to which these acquisition costs had to be paid by the customer through the premiums in the first few years. Therefore, the so-called value in the first years was “zero” – and this is not only “an investor damage” (Prof. Dr. Michael Adams, Univ. Cologne) but simply unconstitutional (BVG, 15.02.2006, Az. 1 BvR 1317/96).
New ruling: Employers in the liability trap
The new decision of the LAG Munich (15.03.2007, Az. 4 Sa 1152106) concerns each implementation method of the company pension scheme (direct insurance, pension commitment, pension fund, pension fund, reinsured support fund). If the sum of the contributions paid in is not available at all times, the employer is liable for the loss of earnings in the case of deferred compensation. The agreements with the employees and the sponsor of the company pension scheme are simply invalid – therefore a double reversal is possible.
Employment law beats insurance law:
In the insurance contract, a good half of the premiums can legally be calculated for acquisition costs in the first few years – under labour law, this is impossible because of the employer’s duty of care irrespective of fault and the requirement of equal value. Employer liability cannot be eliminated by “employee education.” Employees can, at the latest when they leave the company, sue the employer for payment of a missing value difference. Works councils can appoint an economic reorganisation committee. Collective agreements also contain void provisions in this respect. Clarity brings the employer, whether he belongs to the probably over 90% concerned, often only the discussion with an independent actuary (e.g. pkv-gutachter.de/ see focal point handicraft, expenditure 2/2007).
Reasons for timely remediation
In the case of deferred compensation, the employer has the role of a “disinterested trustee” (OLG Düsseldorf, judgement of 06.03.1992), i.e. the duty to choose a favourable offer in the interest of the employees. Increasing employer liability over time may suggest a balance sheet adjustment. It should be noted that employee liability claims become time-barred after 30 years. However, employers often only have 3 years from knowledge to get their money back in full. *by Dr. Johannes Fiala, Attorney at Law, e-mail: info@fiala.de / web: www.fiala.de
(Brennpunkt Handwerk 3/2007, 26)
Courtesy ofwww.handwerk-rww.de.

Our office in Munich

You will find our office at Fasolt-Strasse 7 in Munich, very close to Schloss Nymphenburg. Our team consists of highly motivated attorneys who are available for all the needs of our clients. In special cases, our law firm cooperates with selected experts to represent your interests in the best possible way.


About the author

Dr. Johannes Fiala Dr. Johannes Fiala

Dr. Johannes Fiala has been working for more than 25 years as a lawyer and attorney with his own law firm in Munich. He is intensively involved in real estate, financial law, tax and insurance law. The numerous stages of his professional career enable him to provide his clients with comprehensive advice and to act as a lawyer in the event of disputes.
»More about Dr. Johannes Fiala

On these pages, Dr. Fiala provides information on current legal and economic topics as well as on current political changes that are of social and/or corporate relevance.

Arrange your personal appointment with us.

Make an appointment / call back service

You are already receiving legal advice and would like a second opinion? In this case please contact Dr. Fiala directly via the following link.

Obtain a second legal opinion

The first telephone call about your request is free of charge.