Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In Air Products Plc v Cockram [2018] EWCA Civ 346, the Court of Appeal found that an employer’s rule restricting the right to take stock options on retirement to those aged 55 years or over amounted to objectively justified age discrimination on the basis that the aim of achieving consistency between members of the employer’s defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) pension schemes was a legitimate social policy aspect of intergenerational fairness and the rule was a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

The Court of Appeal maintained that the Employment Tribunal had therefore given a properly reasoned judgment which contained no error of law so that the Employment Appeals Tribunal should not have interfered with it. The appeal was allowed and the Court of Appeal restored the decision of the Employment Tribunal dismissing the complaint of age discrimination.

The factual background of Air Products Plc v Cockram

Mr Cockram (the Claimant) worked for Air Products plc (the Respondent) from August 1988 to July 2012, most recently in a senior position as Director of Business Information.

In May 2012, the Claimant  submitted a grievance regarding comments made by his line manager but the grievance was not upheld and, unhappy with the appeal outcome, the Claimant subsequently resigned from his employment citing fundamental breach of trust and confidence.

The Claimant made a claim to the Employment Tribunal claiming that he had been constructively unfairly dismissed, subjected to detriment by reason of protected disclosures and suffered age discrimination.

The Claimant’s age discrimination claim was based on Air Products’ Long Term Incentive Plan (“LTIP”), in which certain employees were offered stock options. The Claimant held “unvested options”, however, under the plan rules, these were forfeited when the employee left the company, except in certain defined situations: death, disability and retirement. Although the Claimant had retired, he did not fall within the retirement exception under the plan because for the purposes of the LTIP an employee had to retire on or after “customary retirement age” (55 or over) to fall within the exception and the Claimant had retired at age 50.

The Employment Tribunal dismissed all of the Claimant’s claims, but he appealed against the Tribunal’s rejection of his age discrimination claim to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) which allowed his appeal and remitted the case for re-hearing by a freshly constituted tribunal.

The decision of the Employment Tribunal

The Respondent accepted that the rule in the LTIP was directly discriminatory in that an employee who was over 55 years of age (unlike the Claimant) would have benefited from the retirement exception; however,  the issue between the parties was whether this discriminatory effect was objectively justified and was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The Respondent relied on three aims which it asserted to be legitimate aims — (1) intergenerational fairness and consistency with the aim of achieving consistency between the members of the employer’s DB pension scheme (who could retire at 50 years of age) and members of the employer’s DC pension scheme (who could not); (2) rewarding experience and loyalty; and (3) ensuring a mix of generations of staff so as to promote the exchange of experience and new ideas.

The Tribunal concluded that these were legitimate aims which met a real need, and that the discriminatory provision was appropriate to achieving the aims.

The decision of the EAT

The Employment Appeal Tribunal disagreed and found that the ET had erred in law by not giving a sufficient explanation as to why the Respondent’s  actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. The case was then taken to the Court of Appeal (CoA).

The decision of the CoA

The Claimant sought to argue that, in so far as the true aim of the minimum age of 55 to qualify for the retirement exception was to achieve consistency between the DB and DC schemes, this was not a social policy objective but an individual reasons “particular to the employer’s situation” without any social policy component.

The CoA  disagreed and held that steps taken in the employer’s best interests can also concurrently form the basis of a legitimate social policy. The Tribunal had been entitled to conclude that limiting the advantage enjoyed by one age group over another was a legitimate social policy. The plan provided a balance between acting as a retention tool to keep employees with the business until the age of 55 and being an incentive for retirement in order to create opportunities for younger employees.

The CoA added that 55 was a suitable age for employees to receive company benefits given that it was in line with minimum pension age. The Employment Tribunal was deemed entitled to find the provision proportionate and the EAT should not have interfered with the decision.  The Court of Appeal upheld the Employment Tribunal’s dismissal of the age discrimination complaint.

Our solicitors’ comments on Air Products Plc v Cockram

Caroline Lewis, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Direct age discrimination is the only type of direct discrimination which can potentially be objectively justified. The Court of Appeal has confirmed that it is open to an employer to objectively justify including ‘retirement’ as a good leaver reason in a long term incentive plan (LTIP) by reference to a specific retirement age even though doing so constitutes direct age discrimination as long as it is used to achieve a legitimate aim”.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Air Products Plc v Cockram can be found here.

About

Redmans Employment Team deal with employment matters for both employers and employees, including drafting employment contracts and policies, advising employers and employees on compromise agreements, handling day-to-day HR issues, advising on restructures, and handling Employment Tribunal cases for both employers and employees Call 020 3397 3603 to speak to one of the members of our employment team or email us on enquiries@redmans.co.uk. Redmans have offices in Richmond, Chiswick, Hammersmith, Fulham, Kingston, Wimbledon, Ealing, Kings Cross and Marylebone (meetings strictly by appointment only).

Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk

Testimonials

4.76 Average

176 Reviews

Mohamed A

Super helpful and efficient, trustworthy service

Posted 1 day ago

Anonymous

efficient, responsive and effective

Posted 2 days ago

Andrew B

Very good service

Posted 2 days ago

Anonymous

Excellent service, compassionate and a good outcome

Posted 3 days ago

Anonymous

I had an employment issue which required legal advice. Chris was very supportive and knowledgeable, resulting in an optimum resolution in my favour. Would definitely recommend.

Posted 1 week ago

David M

Very professional and first-rate advice. I would use again. With thanks,

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Got the job done swiftly without going too much in to detail.

Posted 1 week ago

Derek W

Redmans dealt with my case very efficiently and I was happy with the outcome.

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Timely professional advice!

Posted 1 week ago

Anonymous

Very good service

Posted 2 weeks ago

Anonymous

I was in contact with Chris and then worked with Caroline on an employment matter. I was very pleased with the service and professionalism throughout, and came away with satisfied with the outcome. Would happily recommend.

Posted 2 weeks ago

Nikki

Received advice re employment law. Chris was very helpful and advised accordingly. Would happily recommend them and if ever I need help again, will not think twice before using them.

Posted 3 weeks ago

Samantha K

Absolutely brilliant thank you. Caroline Lewis is a legend

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

The legal advice was clear and helpful.

Posted 2 months ago

Davinder P

Good Service

Posted 2 months ago

Adrian V

I was using Redmans services for a Settlement Agreement. Very quick and professional service. The outcome was favourable and I was very pleased with the amendments and results. Pretty glad to recommend them for any type of legal advice.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Very responsive, efficient, clear and supportive. Thank you! Highly recommend.

Posted 2 months ago

Tiago S

Chris was always prompt to help me with legal matters that are beyond my comprehension and very helpful leasing with my former employer. I would recommend Redmans Solicitors to everyone who needs help.

Posted 2 months ago

Anonymous

Fast and professional advice tailored to what was needed. Thanks for your help Chris Hadrill and team.

Posted 2 months ago

Peter S

Really pleased with the outcome and the advice I had from Chris and Sacha.

Posted 2 months ago

Harika A

Redmans solicitor's helped me with my settlement agreement, Chris has been very helpful throughout the process.He was very prompt in his responses and made my settlement look simple.Special thanks to Caroline for her efficient communication, thorough explaination of contract terminology and negotiations.I highly reccommend Redmans solicitors for anyone seeking employment related legal help.

Posted 2 months ago