Electrician who was not ready to retire after almost 50 years awarded six months' wages
AN ELECTRICIAN who had worked for the same company for nearly 50 years was unfairly dismissed, an employment and discrimination tribunal concluded.
John Robert worked for Electrical Installations (Guernsey) from 23 May 1969 until December 2018, some four months after his 65th birthday. EIG managing director Mark Le Mesurier had told the hearing that conversations between them previously had left him in no doubt that Mr Robert was well aware that he could be made to retire on his 65th birthday, that he had no expectation that he would continue to be employed after it, and that it was his intention to retire of his own accord anyway. In light of this, and Mr Robert’s ongoing health problems, he decided in about June 2018 that Mr Robert’s employment would not be extended beyond his 65th birthday on 5 August that year, though by his own admission he had not told that to Mr Robert.
Mr Robert was subcontracted to another company during 2018 and was able to work on a little longer. Mr Le Mesurier said that at a meeting in September 2018 Mr Robert had requested he be made redundant and asked for a redundancy payment. He was told he was not being made redundant and would not get a pay-out.
Mr Robert said no such meeting had occurred and he had not discussed his retirement with Mr Le Mesurier until he happened to go to the office on 16 October.
Mr Le Mesurier said he had been so concerned that Mr Robert was trying to get a pay-off and hinder his retirement that he typed a letter on 18 October while Mr Robert was in the office, but he had refused to take it.
Contractual clauses enabled the employer to retire an employee at the age of 65 or at any time after but the burden of proof was on it to show that the procedure followed had been fair in the circumstances. By Mr Le Mesurier’s own admission, he had failed to make or keep contemporaneous notes of meetings or discussions he claimed took place with Mr Robert pending his retirement.
Mr Le Mesurier had stated his perception of Mr Robert’s health following a period of absence some 18 months before in 2017 but no medical evidence was offered to support it. He had also spoken of Mr Robert’s inability to work with apprentices and the company’s reluctance to have Mr Robert work at educational facilities. No evidence was offered though to show that these matters had been discussed with their employee. Mr Le Mesurier said Mr Robert had been treated in the same way as others reaching retirement but no witnesses had been called to support the assertion.
The tribunal said it recognised that EIG was a small employer and acknowledged that small employers were unlikely to have professional in-house personnel. But it had offered no explanation as to why it did not have the knowledge or experience of how to handle employment matters or the resources to take advice when needed. A reasonable employer would in the circumstances have held at minimum one pre-arranged meeting at an early stage to discuss with an employee their future with the company, to allow them to be accompanied, and to take notes of the meeting. This would be even more important if the employer considered the discussion was not to be to the employee’s liking.
The tribunal awarded Mr Robert a sum in the full amount of six months’ wages, which was £16,736.93.
