A council worker has brought a discrimination claim after losing out on a pension estimated at £350,000 when he was made redundant just three days before turning 55.
Lee Henley, now 57, had spent 35 years working for Thurrock Council in Essex when he was told the authority’s restructuring plans would result in his redundancy.
Mr Henley originally understood that his employment would continue beyond his 55th birthday, which would have made him eligible to receive his full accrued pension.
However, while he was on holiday, the redundancy timetable was changed. His final day was brought forward by three days, leaving him short of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
He later took the matter to an employment tribunal, arguing that the decision amounted to age discrimination. An employment judge dismissed his claim.
Mr Henley joined Thurrock Council in 1989 and his employment ended on July 22, 2024. During his 35 years with the authority, he maintained what was described as an “exemplary attendance record”.
By 2022, he had risen to become Head of Information Management. However, the council was facing “significant financial difficulty” and at the time carried the highest level of debt of any local authority in England.
Council worker Lee Henley brought a discrimination claim after missing out on a £350,000 pension when he was made redundant three days before his 55th birthday
The unitary authority was effectively declared bankrupt in 2022, with its peak debt reportedly reaching £1.5billion. A recovery plan was introduced because the council needed to make substantial savings.
In October 2023, PwC began reviewing the council’s operations and recommended wide-ranging changes across several departments.
One proposal was to close the Information Management department, where Mr Henley worked, and make two employees redundant. The move was expected to save £109,000.
Overall, the restructuring was expected to lead to 37 redundancies across the council, with the changes scheduled to take place between February and April 2024.
Mr Henley’s early-retirement lump sum was estimated at £357,858.85.
That was because employees made redundant after reaching 55 can receive their full accrued pension immediately, alongside a redundancy payment.
Workers made redundant before their 55th birthday do not receive that benefit. Instead, they must wait until their normal retirement age—10 or more years later—to receive an equivalent pension.
Mr Henley met Head of Service Sarah Hirt, and they discussed setting his notice period to end on July 28. That would have kept him employed beyond his 55th birthday and allowed him to qualify for his full pension.
Mr Henley had worked for Thurrock Council in Essex for 35 years when he was told that restructuring plans would lead to his redundancy (Pictured: Thurrock Council offices)
The later date would have followed a 45-day consultation period, while a 30-day process would have meant his employment ended before his birthday.
He subsequently met monitoring officer and executive director of corporate services Daniel Fenwick to discuss the redundancies, telling him that he would prefer to accept redundancy rather than remain in his post.
When Mr Henley went on holiday in March 2024, he believed his final day would fall after his birthday, meaning he expected to receive his full pension.
During his absence Ms Hirt had two meetings with Mr Fenwick to discuss the finer details of the redundancies.
NEXT UP: City in America is offering many empty houses for sale for only $1 – NewsFinale
It was agreed there would be fewer than 100 employees made redundant – meaning the consultation period reduced from 45 days to 30 days and therefore Mr Henley’s last day would be before his 55th birthday.
Mr Fenwick emailed Ms Hirt saying: ‘When is his birthday? We don’t want this to look contrived either way in terms of EDT [Effective Date of Termination].’
Mr Fenwick accepted the timing was ‘awkward’.
Ms Hirt said: ‘I hope you are sitting down, the strain alone for LH [Lee Henley] post is £359K plus redundancy cost at £42,603 total cost is £401,603.’
On Mr Henley’s first day back from his holiday, he had a meeting with Ms Hirt where he was told his consultation period was now likely to last for 30 days rather than 45 days.
On April 3, he emailed Ms Hirt telling her of the ‘significant impact’ the change would have on him and referenced his long service but was told accessing his pension was not an appropriate reason to extend his consultation period.
On April 17, Mr Henley was signed off sick with stress and anxiety and was told the consultation period would not be extended.
He later received his notice of dismissal and remained on sick leave until the end of his employment on July 22 – three days before his 55th birthday.
Internal vacancies were advertised whilst he was off and he was encouraged to apply for another role, however, he said it was not right for him.
He eventually appealed his redundancy – but it was dismissed.
Mr Henley unsuccessfully brought claims of direct and indirect age discrimination to an employment tribunal in east London.
Employment Judge Bruce Gardiner said: ‘I accept that this was Mr Fenwick showing his awareness that the last day of [Mr Henley’s] employment was likely to be close to his 55th birthday, with significant implications both for [Mr Henley] and for [Thurrock Council].
‘He wanted to avoid the suggestion that the process had been manipulated so as to achieve a particular outcome – either in [Mr Henley] or [Thurrock Council’s] favour.
‘The decision to reduce the consultation period from 45 days to 30 days was not an act of age discrimination.
‘[Mr Henley] has not proved facts from which I could conclude in the absence of a non-discriminatory explanation that this decision could have been influenced by [Mr Henley’s] age, apart from the fact that Mrs Hirt knew of [Mr Henley’s] age.
‘It was a decision that applied to all redundancy exercises that were instigated at the same time as the process involving Information Management.’
Judge Gardiner added there was ‘no evidence’ any objection was raised to the reduction in days from 45 to 30 by the recognised trade unions who were closely involved with redundancy processes.
He said: ‘Undertaking this exercise, it is clear that had I found that there was some age discrimination in the decisions that were made so as to dismiss [Mr Henley] before his 55th birthday, it would have been justified.
‘[Mr Henley] had no entitlement to an enhanced pension from the age of 55.
‘If [Mr Henley] received an enhanced pension, the cost to [Thurrock Council] would have reduced the sums available to fund other frontline services by over £350,000.’
SEE ALSO: El-Sayed’s Rarely Discussed Birth Mother Tied to Terror Charity