IBM worker on sick leave for 15 years wants pay rise

A tech worker who was on sick leave since 2008 and still getting a big salary took legal action because he wasn’t given a pay rise.

A senior tech worker who was on sick leave since 2008 and still getting an annual salary of £54,000 ($AU101,221) took legal action because he wasn’t given a pay rise.

Ian Clifford claimed he was the victim of disability discrimination because his salary hasn’t been increased in the 15 years he has been off work.

Under a lucrative IBM health plan, the IT specialist receives over £54,000 a year and is guaranteed to receive the salary until he is 65 - meaning he will pocket over £1.5million ($AU2.82m), according to The Sun.

But, Mr Clifford argued it is “not generous enough”, claiming that his £54,028 salary will “wither” over time due to inflation.

IBM put Mr Clifford on their disability plan in 2013. Picture: Getty Images

However, an employment tribunal has dismissed his claims - with a judge telling him he has been given a “very substantial benefit” and “favourable treatment”.

The employment tribunal in Reading, Berks, heard Mr Clifford - who studied at King’s College London - started working for Lotus Development in 2000 before it was acquired by IBM.

He went on sick leave in September 2008 and remained off work until 2013, when he had raised a grievance.

Under the grievance, Mr Clifford complained that he hadn’t received a pay rise and also complained about holiday pay for the five-year period.

In April 2013, when Mr Clifford was in his mid-30s, a “compromise agreement” was reached and his complaints were settled by putting him on the company’s disability plan.

Under the plan, a person who is unable to work is not dismissed, but remains an employee and has “no obligation to work”, it was heard.

An employee on the plan has a “right”, until recovery, retirement, or death if earlier, to be paid 75 per cent of agreed earnings.

In Mr Clifford’s case his agreed salary was £72,037 ($AU135,207) - meaning from 2013 he would be paid £54,028 ($AU101,413) per year after 25 per cent was deducted.

The plan was fixed in place for over 30 years until he reached the retirement age of 65, meaning he will receive a total of over £1.5m ($AU2.82m).

He was also paid £8,685 ($AU16,301) to settle his holiday pay complaints in 2013 and agreed never to raise a further grievance about the same issues.

But, in February 2022 Mr Clifford took IBM to an employment tribunal with new disability discrimination claims, mirroring his previous grievance.

He said he had been treated “unfavourably” with no salary increase since 2013, holiday entitlement and compared himself to a non-disabled employee who would be have been paid their full salary during holidays.

Mr Clifford told the tribunal with inflation now running at over 10 per cent the “value of the payments would soon wither”.

He said: “The point of the plan was to give security to employees not able to work - that was not achieved if payments were for ever frozen.”

Employment Judge Paul Housego dismissed his case.

Ian Clifford took legal action over what he saw as disability discrimination

Judge Housego said: “That 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.

“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 ($93846AU) a year halved over 30 years, it is still a very substantial benefit.

“However, this is not the issue for, fundamentally, the terms of something given as a benefit to the disabled, and not available to those not disabled, cannot be less favourable treatment related to disability.

“It is more favourable treatment, not less.”
A LinkedIn profile for Mr Clifford states he is from the Guildford, Surrey, area, is “medically retired”, and has a son.

This article originally appeared on The Sun and was reproduced with permission