This blog has supported the BP Pensioner’s Group in its complaint that the former employer of those drawing or about to draw pensions have been treated badly.
Their argument is simple; promises were made to pay full increases on pensions and they haven’t been, some pre-97 pensioners don’t get increases and most have had increases capped.
There could have been an argument that when the BP scheme was in deficit , full increases weren’t paid, but that argument fell away when the scheme moved to holding a surplus of funds.
A quick search on “BP” on this blog will bring up the many articles on the company’s behaviour as sponsor of the scheme. The recent executive and non-executive directors of BP might have considered their pensioners the architects of its recent success. BP is back as a successful company but still it refuses to meet the trustee’s request to pay out full increases in line with the promise.
The article that follows was sent me in an FT email by Harvey Nriapia . It is not just the pensioners who’ve had enough!
Shareholders have weighed in on the bust-up at BP, criticising the character and conduct of Albert Manifold, the former chair who was ousted from the role this week following allegations of “bullying”.
The Irish businessman yesterday hit back at the company board’s decision to sack him over issues with “governance standards, oversight and conduct”, describing the claims as “lies”. He added that he maintained a “relentless focus on simply making businesses better” and was a “passionate advocate of shareholders’ rights”.
But several shareholders have told the FT the opposite is true. Some investors alleged Manifold was “challenging” and difficult to interact or secure a meeting with. One said they had struggled to get a hold of Manifold despite having requested a chat with him shortly after he started in the role on October 1. A colleague of another prominent shareholder described the former chair as “condescending” and “arrogant”.
A spokesperson for Manifold disputed the claims, saying he “met every shareholder who requested a meeting and made a point of meeting the company’s most demanding investors personally and regularly”.
BP shares have risen about 29 per cent since Manifold’s appointment, largely owing to the company’s bet on oil and gas following its stuttering foray into renewables. Manifold’s vision was praised in some quarters, with one shareholder dubbing him a “man of action” who “got on with stuff and didn’t mess around”.
“BP should never have made Manifold chair”, writes FT chief UK business columnist John Gapper. Manifold had not been a non-executive chair before and the City considered the decision to hire him a risky gamble, he adds.
Manifold’s dramatic exit leaves the spotlight fixed on Meg O’Neill, BP’s chief executive. O’Neill voted with the rest of the board to oust Manifold, in a move that consolidated her power. But it also leaves her exposed as the sole person responsible for delivering a turnaround at the business.
UBS analyst Joshua Stone said investors would be reassured by O’Neill’s presence, adding that she had joined at a “critical turning point and can help reverse these years of weakness”.