Thurrock Council worker made redundant three days before 55th birthday misses out on £350k payout

The most cash-strapped council England avoided having to pay an 'exemplary' manager £350,000 by making him redundant three days before his 55th birthday, a tribunal heard.

Lee Henley had worked for Thurrock Council for 35 years when he was informed of a restructuring that would make him redundant.

He initially believed that he would finish after his 55th birthday - meaning that he would be entitled to the entirety of his pension.

However, when he was on holiday changes in the Council's redundancy plan brought the date forward to three days before his birthday - leaving him short of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Mr Henley, now 57, took the case to an employment tribunal claiming age discrimination but it has been thrown out by an employment judge.

Mr Henley was born on July 25, 1969, and began working at Thurrock Council in Essex in 1989.

His employment ended at the Council on July 22, 2024, having worked there for 35 years with an 'exemplary attendance record'.

By 2022 he had become the Head of Information Management but the Council was in 'significant financial difficulty' and had the highest level of debt of any local authority in England at the time.

The unitary authority was declared effectively bankrupt in 2022 and its peak debt was reportedly £1.5 billion.

A recovery plan was put in place as there 'was a need for substantial savings'.

In October 2023 PWC began analysis the Council and recommended major changes to various departments.

It was proposed that the Information Management department, where Mr Henley was working, would be disbanded and there would be two redundancies - saving £109,000.

In all it was anticipated that there would be 37 redundancies and the changes would be implemented between February and April 2024.

It was estimated that the lump sum of early retirement for Mr Henley would be £357,858.85.

This arose because employees who are made redundant once they have reached the age of 55 are entitled to receive their full accrued pension immediately in addition to a redundancy payment.

Those employees who are made redundant before reaching the age of 55 are not so entitled and will only receive an equivalent pension at their normal retirement age, ten or more years later.

Mr Henley met with Head of Service Sarah Hirt and they discussed ending his notice period on July 28 - meaning he would still be employed on his 55th birthday and therefore entitled to his full pension.

This would be due to a 45-day consultation period - whereas a 30-day period would lead to his last day being before his birthday.

He later met with monitoring officer and executive director of corporate services Daniel Fenwick to discuss redundancies where he said his preference was to take redundancy rather than maintain his role.

In March 2024 he went on holiday believing that his last day would be after his birthday and he would therefore get his full pension.

During his absence Mrs Hirt had two meetings with Mr Fenwick to discuss the finer details of the redundancies.

It was agreed that there would now be fewer than 100 employees made redundant - meaning that 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 Mrs 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 that the timing was 'awkward'.

Mrs Hirt said: "I hope you are sitting down … the strain alone for LH 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 Mrs Hirt where he was told that his consultation period was now likely to last for 30 days rather than 45 days.

On April 3 Mr Henley emailed Mrs Hirt telling her of the 'significant impact' the change would have on him and referenced his long service but was told that accessing his pension was not an appropriate reason to extend his consultation period.

On April 17 he was signed off sick with stress and anxiety and was told that 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 but 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.

"There is no evidence that any objection was raised to the reduction from 45 days to 30 days by the recognised trade unions who were closely involved with these redundancy processes.

"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."