The deadline for negotiations relating to the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), the biggest private defined benefit (DB) scheme in the country, have been extended.
The talks, which were due to end yesterday (19 December), have been extended until 23 January 2018.
The University and College Union (UCU), the trade union for higher education staff, and Universities UK, which represents 350 university employers, have agreed to continue negotiations after the Christmas break with a view to reaching an agreement, the union said.
Earlier this month, Universities UK announced plans to close down the USS defined benefit section, and transform the scheme into a full defined contribution (DC) fund.
The union said this proposal is "a bolt from the blue" and it is asking members to back industrial action in a ballot, which will run until 19 January.
The scheme covers the majority of staff mainly in the older "pre-1992 universities" including Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester and Imperial.
There have been concerns about the scheme's £12.6bn deficit, with employers and members warned they may need to increase contributions by up to 7 per cent to maintain their current benefits.
But this is beyond what universities are willing to pay and Frank Field, chairman of the work and pensions select committee, has written to ministers, The Pensions Regulator and the trustees of the scheme to understand why its deficit has increased £7.3bn in three years.
UCU has argued that a defined contribution scheme could lead to a final pension worth only around 20 per cent of the "best" defined benefit schemes.
A previous ballot, in October, showed overwhelming support for industrial action to protect pensions, with 87 per cent of votes.
An analysis recently conducted by First Actuarial, which compared the pension of a lecturer starting work today under the new proposals for the scheme, concluded that staff could be £200,000 worse off in retirement.
Michael Otsuka, a professor at London School of Economics (LSE), has argued the scheme closure could leave staff with only half of their retirement income.
maria.espadinha@ft.com
