A MAN who spent 35 years working for Thurrock Council and climbed through the ranks to become a senior manager claims the cash-strapped authority has cheated him out of a pension pot worth £357,858.85.

Lee Henley began working at Thurrock Council in 1989, with his last post being Head of Information Management. He opted to take a redundancy package in July 2024 and left the authority on 22 July with an 'exemplary attendance record'.

However, a tweak to the terms of his planned severance package has cost him hundreds of thousands and he has accused the council of chicanery and discrimination, taking it to an employment tribunal where the facts – described by the council's senior legal officer as 'awkward' - unfolded.

However, Mr Henley, now 57, failed to prove his case asserting that a sudden adjustment to the consultation timeline intentionally denied him access to his full retirement benefits.

The tribunal did not support his claim that action by head of service Sarah Hirt and monitoring officer and executive director of corporate services Daniel Fenwick was collusion designed to save the cash-strapped council money.

The tribunal, headed by Employment Judge Bruce Gardiner, heard of an email exchange between Mr Fenwick and Ms Hirt when they discussed how the terms of the package might change from what was originally offered and how they might ease the strain on the council's coffers.

The build-up to Mr Henley's departure was among proposals from accountancy firm, PwC who had controversially been brought in by the then Conservative administration to investigate how to make savings – at a cost of £800,000.

The savings were required as the council moved into government intervention after it had effectively been declared bankrupt in 2022 following the billion-pound collapse of its 'borrow to invest policy'.

In October 2023, PwC began analysis on the council and recommended major changes to various departments, among them disbanding the Information Management department headed by Mr Henley. It was proposed £109,000 would be saved annually by two redundancies. The proposal put to Mr Henley over losing his job, which he was told would happen after his 55^th birthday would result in a redundancy payment and pensions package costing the council £401,603 in total.

He was offered the opportunity to apply for other jobs within the council, but declined to take them and said he would go on 28 July - meaning he would still be employed on his 55th birthday and therefore entitled to his full pension.

This arose because employees who are made redundant once they have reached the age of 55 are entitled to receive their full accrued pension immediately in addition to a redundancy payment.

Those employees who are made redundant before reaching the age of 55 are not so entitled and will only receive an equivalent pension at their normal retirement age, ten or more years later.

Mr Henley believed he had agreed to a redundancy deal which included a 45-day consultation period because the council was making more than 100 people redundant, including him. The 45 days is a statutory procedure when dealing with that many redundancies. They took him past his 55th birthday while still employed.

It was a crucial point because a 30-day period would lead to his last day being before his birthday.

Mr Henley told the tribunal he had met with Daniel Fenwick, who had joined the council just a couple of months earlier on a salary of more than £160,000, to discuss his options and his preference was to take redundancy rather than other employment options.

In March 2024, Mr Henley went on holiday believing his last day would be after his birthday and he would therefore get his full pension.

The tribunal heard that, during his absence, Ms Hirt had two meetings with Mr Fenwick to discuss the finer details of the redundancies.

It was agreed there would be fewer than 100 employees made redundant - meaning the consultation period reduced from 45 days to 30 days and therefore Mr Henley's last day would be before his 55th birthday.

Mr Fenwick emailed Ms Hirt saying: "When is his birthday? We don't want this to look contrived either way in terms of EDT (Effective Date of Termination)."

Mr Fenwick accepted the timing was 'awkward'.

Ms Hirt said: "I hope you are sitting down, the strain alone for LH's (Lee Henley) post is £359K plus redundancy cost at £42,603. Total cost is £401,603."

In published findings from the tribunal two other senior managers were included in the discussions - CEO and Commissioner Dr Dave Smith and head of finance Dawn Calvert.

The findings (which can be read in full via this link) relating to the aftermath of Mr Fenwick's exchange with Ms Hirt, says:

"This was the first time that Mr Fenwick was aware of the particular cost to the Respondent of making the Claimant redundant if his last day of employment was on or after his 55th birthday.

"This was far greater than the proposed savings of £140,000 that were proposed from a reorganisation of Information Management.

"Mrs Hirt then followed that up with an email sent to Dave Smith (Interim CEO) and Dawn Calvert (Chief Financial Officer) in the following terms: "Hi Both Following Dan's email earlier today, I am emailing to confirm that the total cost for deleting the Head of Information Governance role would be £401,603. In terms of breakdown of cost £42,603 covers the redundancy payment with the remaining £359,000 for Financial Strain.

"The saving identified for releasing this post within the PwC business case was £109,000."

Finance chief Dawn Calvert and CEO Dr Dave Smith were also involved in discussions about how to reduce a redundancy payment to Lee Henley.

"Mr Fenwick responded by asking Mrs Hirt if the timetable meant the Claimant would be 55 at the termination date. Making the assumption that the pension strain may be payable, he asked Dawn Calvert: "Whilst I can see a logic in deleting this post it will take four years to pay back the full strain so wondering if there's any analysis of this type of issue.".

On Mr Henley's first day back from his holiday, he had a meeting with Ms Hirt where he was told his consultation period was now likely to last for 30 days rather than 45 days.

On April 3, he emailed Ms Hirt telling her of the 'significant impact' the change would have on him and referenced his long service but was told accessing his pension was not an appropriate reason to extend his consultation period.

On April 17, Mr Henley was signed off sick with stress and anxiety and was told the consultation period would not be extended.

He later received his notice of dismissal and remained on sick leave until the end of his employment on July 22 - three days before his 55th birthday.

He appealed his redundancy - but it was dismissed.

Mr Henley then brought claims of direct and indirect age discrimination to the recent employment tribunal where the actions of Dan Fenwick came under close scrutiny.

Referring to the email exchange, Judge Gardiner said: "I accept that this was Mr Fenwick showing his awareness that the last day of Mr Henley's employment was likely to be close to his 55th birthday, with significant implications both for Mr Henley and Thurrock Council.

"He wanted to avoid the suggestion that the process had been manipulated so as to achieve a particular outcome - either in Mr Henley or Thurrock Council's favour."

The judge considered the thought processes behind the council's decision to reduce the consultation period from 45 days to 30 days and concluded it was not an act of age discrimination.

He said: "Mr Henley has not proved facts from which I could conclude in the absence of a non-discriminatory explanation that this decision could have been influenced by age, apart from the fact that Mrs Hirt knew of Henley's age.

"It was a decision that applied to all redundancy exercises that were instigated at the same time as the process involving Information Management.'

Judge Gardiner added there was 'no evidence' any objection was raised to the reduction in days from 45 to 30 by the recognised trade unions who were closely involved with redundancy processes.

He said: "Undertaking this exercise, it is clear that had I found that there was some age discrimination in the decisions that were made so as to dismiss Mr Henley before his 55th birthday, it (his claim) would have been justified.

"However, Mr Henley had no entitlement to an enhanced pension from the age of 55.

"If Mr Henley received an enhanced pension, the cost to Thurrock Council would have reduced the sums available to fund other frontline services by over £350,000."

When he reaches the appropriate retirement age, likely to be in ten years, Mr Henley will be due to receive the appropriate funds from his pension pot.