A council employee has sued for discrimination after lacking out on a pension value £350,000 when he was made redundant three days earlier than his fifty fifth birthday.
Lee Henley, 57, had labored for Thurrock Council in Essex for 35 years when he was advised restructuring plans inside the authority meant he could be let go.
Mr Henley initially believed he would end on the Council after his fifty fifth birthday – that means he could be entitled to the whole thing of his pension.
However he was left brief a whole bunch of hundreds of kilos after adjustments in redundancy plans – introduced in whereas Mr Henley was on vacation – introduced the date ahead by three days earlier than his birthday.
He subsequently took the case to an employment tribunal, claiming age discrimination. Nevertheless, his declare has now been dismissed by an employment choose.
Mr Henley started working at Thurrock Council in 1989. His employment ended on July 22, 2024, having labored on the authority for 35 years with an ‘exemplary attendance file’.
By 2022, he had turn out to be the Head of Data Administration – however the Council was in ‘vital monetary issue’ and had the very best degree of debt of any native authority in England on the time.
Council employee Lee Henley sued for discrimination after he missed out on £350k pension when he was made redundant three days earlier than his fifty fifth birthday
The unitary authority was declared successfully bankrupt in 2022, with its peak debt reportedly at £1.5 billion. In consequence, a restoration plan was put in place as there ‘was a necessity for substantial financial savings’.
In October 2023, PwC started evaluation on the Council and advisable main adjustments to numerous departments.
It was proposed the Data Administration division – the place Mr Henley was working – could be disbanded and there could be two redundancies, saving £109,000.
It was anticipated there could be 37 redundancies in complete and the adjustments could be applied between February and April 2024.
It has been estimated the lump sum of early retirement for Mr Henley could be £357,858.85.
This arose as a result of workers who’re made redundant as soon as they’ve reached the age of 55 are entitled to obtain their full accrued pension instantly along with a redundancy cost.
These workers who’re made redundant earlier than reaching the age of 55 aren’t so entitled and can solely obtain an equal pension at their regular retirement age, ten or extra years later.
Mr Henley met with Head of Service Sarah Hirt and so they mentioned ending his discover interval on July 28 – that means he would nonetheless be employed on his fifty fifth birthday and due to this fact entitled to his full pension.
Mr Henley labored for Thurrock Council in Essex for 35 years when he was advised restructuring plans inside the authority meant he could be let go (Pictured: Thurrock Council Workplaces)
This may be on account of a 45-day session interval, whereas a 30-day interval would result in his final day being earlier than his birthday.
He later met with monitoring officer and government director of company providers Daniel Fenwick to debate redundancies the place he stated his desire was to take redundancy slightly than keep his function.
In March 2024, Mr Henley went on vacation believing his final day could be after his birthday and he would due to this fact get his full pension.
Throughout his absence Mrs Hirt had two conferences with Mr Fenwick to debate the finer particulars of the redundancies.
It was agreed there could be fewer than 100 workers made redundant – that means the session interval lowered from 45 days to 30 days and due to this fact Mr Henley’s final day could be earlier than his fifty fifth birthday.
Mr Fenwick emailed Mrs Hirt saying: ‘When is his birthday? We do not need this to look contrived both manner by way of EDT [Effective Date of Termination].’
Mr Fenwick accepted the timing was ‘awkward’.
Mrs Hirt stated: ‘I hope you might be sitting down, the pressure alone for LH put up is £359K plus redundancy price at £42,603 complete price is £401,603.’
On Mr Henley’s first day again from his vacation, he had a gathering with Mrs Hirt the place he was advised his session interval was now prone to final for 30 days slightly than 45 days.
On April 3, he emailed Mrs Hirt telling her of the ‘vital impression’ the change would have on him and referenced his lengthy service however was advised accessing his pension was not an acceptable purpose to increase his session interval.
On April 17, Mr Henley was signed off sick with stress and nervousness and was advised the session interval wouldn’t be prolonged.
He later obtained his discover of dismissal and remained on sick go away till the top of his employment on July 22 – three days earlier than his fifty fifth birthday.
Inside vacancies had been marketed while he was off and he was inspired to use for an additional function, nonetheless, he stated it was not proper for him.
He finally appealed his redundancy – nevertheless it was dismissed.
Mr Henley unsuccessfully introduced claims of direct and oblique age discrimination to an employment tribunal in East London.
Employment Decide Bruce Gardiner stated: ‘I settle for that this was Mr Fenwick exhibiting his consciousness that the final day of [Mr Henley’s] employment was prone to be near his fifty fifth birthday, with vital implications each for [Mr Henley] and for [Thurrock Council].
‘He wished to keep away from the suggestion that the method had been manipulated in order to attain a specific consequence – both in [Mr Henley] or [Thurrock Council’s] favour.
‘The choice to scale back the session interval from 45 days to 30 days was not an act of age discrimination.
‘[Mr Henley] has not proved details from which I might conclude within the absence of a non-discriminatory clarification that this resolution might have been influenced by [Mr Henley’s] age, aside from the truth that Mrs Hirt knew of [Mr Henley’s] age.
‘It was a call that utilized to all redundancy workouts that had been instigated concurrently the method involving Data Administration.’
Decide Gardiner added there was ‘no proof’ any objection was raised to the discount in days from 45 to 30 by the recognised commerce unions who had been intently concerned with redundancy processes.
He stated: ‘Enterprise this train, it’s clear that had I discovered that there was some age discrimination within the choices that had been made in order to dismiss [Mr Henley] earlier than his fifty fifth birthday, it could have been justified.
‘[Mr Henley] had no entitlement to an enhanced pension from the age of 55.
‘If [Mr Henley] obtained an enhanced pension, the fee to [Thurrock Council] would have lowered the sums out there to fund different frontline providers by over £350,000.’
