IBM worker on sick leave for 15 years says he’s ‘not greedy’ after suing over no pay rise on £54k salary

A TECH worker who has been off sick for 15 years while on £54,000 per year tried to sue his employer for discrimination.

Ian Clifford claimed he was the victim of disability discrimination because he had not had a pay rise since he went off sick in 2008.

IBM’s health plan ensured Mr Clifford’s £54,000 a year was locked in until he was 65. The IT worker was heading toward a pot of cash worth over £1.5m.

But soaring inflation prompted Mr Clifford to sue, claiming his £54k salary would “wither.”

The employment tribunal in Reading, Berks, heard Mr Clifford started working for Lotus Development in 2000 before it was acquired by IBM.

The King’s College graduate went on sick leave in September 2008 and remained off work until 2013, when he had raised a grievance.

In 2013 he complained that he had not received a pay rise since he went off sick in 2008. And he complained about holiday pay.

A “compromise agreement” was then reached when he was put on the firm’s disability plan.

The plan entitled Mr Clifford to 75% of his total salary until he retired, meaning he would be paid £54,028 per year

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.

But in February last year Mr Clifford launched a legal action against his employer.

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.

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 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.”