When the London Borough of Tower Hamlets notified Mr J Wooster on 9 October 2006 his secondment as a senior consultation officer to a registered social landlord (RSL) was coming to an end, he was also advised that unless alternative employment could be found within the council, he would be dismissed on grounds of redundancy. The council offered an advantageous voluntary redundancy package, which he reluctantly accepted after no success at finding alternative roles and, as a result, his employment was terminated on 29 December 2006.
At the time he was 49 years old and in six months’ time (on his 50th birthday in July 2007) would have been entitled under the local government pension scheme on any later compulsory termination of his employment to an immediate early retirement pension, with no reductions rather than having to wait until the minimum age of 60 for a deferred pension payout.
Mr Wooster had joined the council when he was 16, following in his father and grandfather's footsteps. His grandfather John was Mayor of Poplar and had streets named after him.
The CEO of the RSL he was seconded to (East End Homes) suggested to the council that Mr Wooster could stay on until he was 50 (he had enough work available) and offered to pay his salary, which had previously been paid the council. Part of the evidence presented to the tribunal when Mr Wooster initiated proceedings was the reason given by the Ms McEleney, the director of housing management at the council, for rejecting this:
‘Despite East End Homes offering to pay 100% of Mr Wooster’s salary up to July 2007, Ms McEleney would not be persuaded to allow the secondment to continue and, without giving detailed consideration to the key principles of the redundancy and redeployment procedure, she stated that it was her desire to bring all secondments to an end and reacted to the offer of Mrs Bloss [the RSL CEO] in the following way:
“Paul, if you are going to pay his salary then you can pay his bloody pension when he is 50. If he goes now we save the pension.”
The council could have easily redeployed Mr Wooster as there were a number of suitable vacancies. However, this was not encouraged and he had no success with the only two roles he did apply for.
Mr Wooster took the council to the employment tribunal on 16 March 2007 claiming unfair dismissal and age discrimination, claiming £1m in compensation based on loss of earnings until his retirement age of 65, loss of pension and injury to feelings. The tribunal upheld his claim, but the council appealed. The EAT dismissed the appeal in June 2009 and the reserved judgment was handed down on 10 September 2009.
He was advised by solicitors Royds LLP and their summary of the case can be read here
the EAT judgment of Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster can be viewed here.
In Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster EAT/0441/08, the EAT upheld a finding that the redundancy dismissal of a 49-year-old employee amounted to age discrimination. The tribunal was entitled to find that the employer could have found alternative work for him, but that it had failed to do so because it was concerned that, if he remained employed up to the age of 50, he would be entitled to a more generous early retirement package.