School business manager who lost her job of 25 years just 17 days before she was eligible for her pension wins age discrimination tribunal
- Suzanne Millar’s redundancy was ‘accelerated’ by bosses at Oak Trust in Oldham
- She had begged to stay on until her 55th birthday to withdraw from her pension
A business manager who was made redundant just 17 days before she was eligible for her pension and after serving a primary school for 25 years has won an age discrimination case.
Suzanne Millar was shown the door in an ‘accelerated’ redundancy process at Fir Bank Primary School less than three weeks before her 55th birthday, an employment tribunal heard.
When Mrs Millar begged to stay on until her 55th birthday so she could withdraw from her pension, she was criticised and told she was only focused on her ‘self gain’.
Bosses at the school’s trust in Oldham, Lancs, also told her they couldn’t possibly extend her employment as it would be a ‘failure of the responsibility as guardians of the public purse’.
Mrs Millar, who was dismissed despite her pleas, took The Oak Trust – which runs Fir Bank – to an employment tribunal and can now expect a payout.
Fir Bank Primary school in Oldham, which is run by the Oak Trust. A judge ruled that Suzanne Millar’s redundancy process had been rushed through by bosses there
The senior manager, now 56, won claims of age discrimination and unfair dismissal after a judge ruled that the redundancy process had been rushed through.
The tribunal, held in Manchester, heard she started working at Fir Bank as a school business manager in 2004, having done a different role at a linked college in Oldham from 1996, giving her 25 years service.
The primary school is a community school and therefore funded by the local authority.
The Oak Trust was formed in 2017, including Mrs Millar’s school and two others – with ‘centralisation’ of roles taking place.
As a result, a review was carried out in March 2021 about the suitability of existing roles given the changing landscape of school administration.
In a ‘proposal’ report, it was suggested by co-CEO Gillian Hindle that Mrs Millar’s school business manager role be ‘deleted’, along with two others.
The tribunal heard Mrs Millar was not entitled to a ‘strain’ payment from the school under the Local Government Pension Scheme, because she was under 55.
If Mrs Millar’s dismissal was delayed from August 31 – past her birthday on 18 September – the panel heard she would have been entitled to a strain payment of £25,000 to 32,000.
The tribunal panel described the following ‘urgency of completing the process’ by the trust as having taken place to avoid incurring a ‘large, avoidable additional cost’.
After a meeting at the end of April 2021, Mrs Millar was sent a letter, where ‘for the first time’, she understood the proposal was not for a restructure – but instead for her to be made redundant.
The tribunal heard Mrs Millar was left ‘shocked and upset’.
After a meeting on May 4, in which Mrs Millar had experienced technical difficulties, she emailed bosses requesting a one to one meeting.
She also asked several questions regarding redundancy termination as well as notice period, the amount of redundancy pay and her pension.
In a ‘proposal’ report, it was suggested by Oak Trust co-CEO Gillian Hindle that Mrs Millar’s school business manager role be ‘deleted’, along with two others
Under UK legislation, people can start withdrawing from their pension once they turn 55, with 25 per cent of this available as a tax-free lump sum.
On her pension, Mrs Millar asked Mrs Hindle: ‘I am 55 on September 18 and would like the early pension option without reduction in my benefits.
‘As I am 17 days out can the Trust consider this?’
Two days later, Mrs Hindle replied: ‘As you are not 55 on 31st August, the trust are unable to release your pension early.’
The panel heard a one to one meeting never materialised, before Mrs Millar went off sick from May 10 due to ‘stress at work’.
In a later meeting Mrs Hindle gave a ‘seriously misleading statement’ to the Trust saying she had met with Mrs Millar when in fact she hadn’t, before Mrs Millar’s redundancy was confirmed.
The panel heard Mrs Millar’s appeal was dismissed in June, and was told: ‘The Trust would be failing in its duty as a guardian of the public purse if they manipulated a timeline for your financial self-gain.’
Despite finding the reason for dismissal was justified in terms of the role now being ‘redundant’, the panel said there was ‘significant criticism’ which could be made of the consultation process and being ‘wedded to a fixed timetable’.
Employment Judge Joanne Dunlop said: ‘The proposed timetable shows that the procedural safeguards of the trust’s own policy were to be jettisoned in favour of an accelerated process.
‘We feel satisfied that if the trust’s focus had been on offering a fair and genuine process, and not on meeting the artificial deadline, there would have been a significant extension to the process involving Mrs Millar, and that the act of giving her notice of dismissal would have been delayed by, on our best estimate, around six weeks.
‘A delay of that length would, on the case as put forward by both parties, have unlocked her entitlement to enhanced pension and caused the trust to have to make a ‘strain’ payment to the pension scheme to fund the same.’
The judge ruled Mrs Millar’s upcoming 55th birthday was a ‘significant motivator’ to the trust’s approach.
The judge added: ‘Mrs Millar’s 55th birthday was the key moment, had she already reached that milestone or had she been comfortably younger than it, we are satisfied that many of the errors in this process would have been avoided or corrected.
‘However, the point which takes much more prominence is the argument that Mrs Millar wishes to restart the process for her own gain and that the Trust would not be acting as guardians of the public purse in allowing her to do so,’ she continued.
‘The trust’s main concern was therefore to avoid paying the strain payment and to avoid Mrs Millar obtaining what it saw as a windfall.
‘That is a concern which is inextricable from her age. We find that the failure to re-start the process was an act of discrimination on the grounds of age.’
A hearing will now take place to decide how much compensation she will be paid.
Source: Read Full Article
