Company accountant wins £182K in age discrimination claim

A long-serving company accountant has received £182,000 in compensation after an employment tribunal found disciplinary charges were “trumped up” against him by his bosses as a way of forcing him to quit.

The Liverpool tribunal ruled that Warrington-based lubricant specialist Rock Oil unfairly dismissed and discriminated against John Peters, now 69, because management wanted him to retire.

Peters, who worked for the company for 16 years, went on lengthy sickness absence with work-related stress following a “hostile” internal meeting.

Rock Oil management subsequently failed to follow the recommendations of two medical reports to facilitate his return to work, lied to him about his bonus, invented disciplinary charges against him in what could only be described as a threatening manner and failed to carry out a fair and objective disciplinary procedure, the Liverpool tribunal ruled.

It also found that Rock Oil unreasonably singled out Peters for investigation, denied him access to relevant information and cherry-picked information that allowed it to paint a picture that would fit with the pre-determined decision to dismiss him.

Management also gave “unreliable” evidence, and in particular sought to mislead the Tribunal about the non-payment of Peters’ bonus when he was on sickness absence.

In November 2016, Peters was awarded over £182,000 compensation, including loss of earnings and benefits, injury to feelings due to age discrimination and an uplift for Rock Oil’s failure to follow the Acas Code of Practice. Peters finally received his compensation a week ago.

The judgement states: “When the claimant indicated he did not intend to retire, the management trumped up charges against him in what can only be described as a threatening manner, acted in a high-handed manner in relation to the medical reports and then failed to follow the recommendations of two medical reports to facilitate the claimant’s return to work.

It went on to say that management “refused to follow the recommendations of their external consultant, lied to the claimant about his bonus, demanded the return of his company care (although this demand was subsequently rescinded, but not before it subjected the claimant to further stress), refused to provide the information the claimant needed to respond to the allegations against him and failed to carry out a fair and objective disciplinary procedure”.

Manchester-based Seabury Beaumont partner Ian Seabury who acted for Peters from his initial sickness absence in 2013 until the successful conclusion of his case, said: “Retirement can be a sensitive subject in the workplace, in the absence of a default retirement age and an increasing number of older employees wishing to remain in employment.

“Should an employee not wish to retire, an employer conducting itself so unreasonably towards a long-serving employee will find it difficult to show that the reason for the treatment had nothing to do with the employee’s age, and is therefore discriminatory.

“In this instance, the employer’s initial treatment of Mr Peters was further compounded by it following a disciplinary procedure that was so unreasonable the tribunal couldn’t help but condemn it in the strongest terms. In the tribunal’s own words “the whole matter was a complete shambles”.

Peters said: “I am totally relieved that the matter has reached a conclusion after four years of stress and anguish. The matter was never about financial compensation but to preserve my good name and reputation in the field of finance and accountancy.

“I am also very disappointed that the company have shown no remorse or offered any apology throughout the whole process.”

TheBusinessDesk has contacted Rock Oil for a comment.