Council Worker Denied Discrimination Claim Over Missed Pension

An employment tribunal has dismissed a discrimination claim brought by a council worker who was made redundant three days before his 55th birthday, costing him a pension valued at approximately £350,000. Lee Henley, 57, had served Thurrock Council in Essex for 35 years before his employment concluded on July 22, 2024.

Mr. Henley had anticipated his employment would continue past his 55th birthday, which would have entitled him to his full accrued pension. However, changes to redundancy plans, implemented while he was on holiday, advanced his termination date, preventing him from reaching the pension eligibility threshold.

Thurrock Council was experiencing significant financial difficulties and had amassed a debt reportedly reaching £1.5 billion. In response, the authority engaged PwC to conduct an analysis, which recommended departmental restructuring to achieve substantial savings. The Information Management department where Mr. Henley worked was slated for disbandment, leading to two redundancies and an estimated saving of £109,000.

Initially, it was anticipated that 37 redundancies would occur, with changes implemented between February and April 2024. The estimated lump sum of early retirement for Mr. Henley was £357,858.85. Employees made redundant after their 55th birthday are entitled to their full pension immediately, in addition to a redundancy payment, whereas those made redundant before this age receive their pension at the normal retirement age, typically ten or more years later.

Mr. Henley initially discussed a notice period that would extend beyond his birthday, allowing him to receive his pension. This would have required a 45-day consultation period. However, during his holiday in March 2024, the consultation period was reduced from 45 days to 30 days, a change agreed upon in meetings between Head of Service Sarah Hirt and monitoring officer Daniel Fenwick. This reduction meant the effective date of termination fell before his 55th birthday.

Mr. Fenwick acknowledged the timing was "awkward" and raised concerns about the process appearing "contrived." Mrs. Hirt noted the significant financial implications for the council if Mr. Henley received his pension early, stating the total cost would be £401,603, including redundancy payments.

Upon his return from holiday, Mr. Henley was informed of the reduced consultation period. He expressed the significant impact this change would have, referencing his long service, but was told that accessing his pension was not a valid reason to extend the consultation. Subsequently, Mr. Henley was signed off sick with stress and anxiety and later received his notice of dismissal.

He appealed his redundancy, but the appeal was dismissed. Mr. Henley's claims of direct and indirect age discrimination were subsequently rejected by Employment Judge Bruce Gardiner.

Judge Gardiner accepted that Mr. Fenwick was aware of the proximity of Mr. Henley's termination date to his 55th birthday and its financial implications. However, the judge stated that the decision to reduce the consultation period was not an act of age discrimination. He found that Mr. Henley had not proven facts from which discrimination could be concluded, beyond Mrs. Hirt's awareness of his age. The decision to shorten the consultation period was applied to all redundancy exercises initiated at that time and was a decision that applied to all redundancy exercises that were instigated at the same time as the process involving Information Management.

Furthermore, the judge noted there was no evidence that trade unions, who were involved in the redundancy processes, had raised objections to the reduction in consultation days. He added that even if age discrimination had been found, the decision would have been justified, as Mr. Henley had no entitlement to an enhanced pension from the age of 55, and paying it would have reduced funds available for frontline services by over £350,000.