Man who spent 15 years on sick leave sued IBM after they wouldn't give him pay rise
Sick leave is one of those things where it’s never a good situation if you’re on it, but something you might fantasise about taking.
But you probably don’t want imagine having to spend over a decade on it.
And this man who spent 15 years on sick leave ended up suing IBM after it wouldn’t give him a pay rise.
Ian Clifford was an employee of the tech giant when he first went off work for his health back in September 2008. And his LinkedIn profile showed him as ‘medically retired’ from 2013.
Advert
In that year, the man raised a grievance with the company, complaining he hadn’t received any pay rise over five years.
Clifford managed to reach a ‘compromise agreement’ with his employer, meaning he was put onto its disability plan which prevented him from being dismissed.
Therefore, the man remained as an IBM employee with ‘no obligation to work’.
Under this health plan, workers have the right to earn three-quarters of their agreed earnings. So, the man got an annual pay of £54,028 which he could keep getting until he hits 65. Yep, with some maths, that would mean he’d be paid about £1.5 million while on ‘sick leave’.
However, Clifford wasn’t best pleased over the amount not budging over the past decade so decided to sue.
In February 2022, he took IBM to an employment tribunal on claims of disability discrimination, with a similar grievance to the last time he raised concerns.
The man said he had been treated 'unfavourably' as he'd received no salary increase since 2013 and warned the 'value of the payments would soon wither' due to punishingly high levels of inflation.
He said: "The point of the plan was to give security to employees not able to work - that was not achieved if payments were forever frozen."
But it didn’t quite go how he hopes as the employment tribunal in Reading dismissed his claim. Clifford has told that he was getting a 'very substantial benefit' and receiving 'favourable treatment'.
"Active employees may get pay rises, but inactive employees do not, is a difference, but is not, in my judgement, a detriment caused by something arising from disability," employment Judge Paul Housego said in his dismissal of the case.
"The complaint is in fact that the benefit of being an inactive employee on the Plan is not generous enough, because the payments have been at a fixed level since April 6, 2013, now 10 years, and may remain so.
"The claim is that the absence of increase in salary is disability discrimination because it is less favourable treatment than afforded those not disabled.
"This contention is not sustainable because only the disabled can benefit from the plan.
"It is not disability discrimination that the Plan is not even more generous.
"Even if the value of the £50,000 a year halved over 30 years, it is still a very substantial benefit."
Jess Battison