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 first name (required)

    Your last name (required)

    Your email (required)

    Your telephone number (required)

    Brief details of your enquiry

    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

    235 Reviews

    Paul O

    Chris & Rana guided me through a redundancy discussion. Prompt & patient assistance with the documents & meetings. Clear advice & fast responses regarding negotiations. Would definitely recommend & would use again without hesitation.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Outstanding, efficient service. Thank you so much!

    Posted 1 month ago

    Jaswant S

    Very very happy with the good service I got Thank you so much for your help

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Mel and Chris were fantastic and supportive throughout! 1000% recommend.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Emma D

    Good responsive service

    Posted 1 month ago

    Mike T

    Good efficient service.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Brenda G

    Very professional and helpful

    Posted 1 month ago

    Charles A

    Chris Hadrill was recommended to me when I found myself in need of a solicitor at very short notice. He contacted me almost immediately to arrange a call. Chris handled my case in a professional and timely manner and kept me notified throughout. Chris inspired confidence and made me feel I was being cared for. If ever I'm in need of legal representation, I would not hesitate to contact Chris. And will gladly recommend him to family and friends.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Rosalind R

    I was very happy with the service that I received from Redmans Solicitors. They were able to advise me accordingly with regards to my employment matter and stay within the agreed costing.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Karl B

    Caroline and Chris were so helpful and friendly. Couldn't of asked for a better service.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Dimitrios P

    Excellent, professional service, in time and within the expected value.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Barbara K

    Everything quickly and fairly. Very professional. Thank you.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Sabrina J

    I received a efficient professional service during the whole process of liasing between myself and my former employer to getting all forms signed and receiving my redundancy payment in full in the summer of this year.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    I received legal advice on a redundancy settlement agreement from Redmans Solicitors and was very impressed by the quality of their service. Chris Hadrill is highly experienced in settlement matters and was especially understanding of the particulars of my case, going out of his way to ensure that it was resolved quickly and with the utmost professionalism. I have no hesitation in recommending Redmans to anyone in need of employment advice and settlement resolution.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    Excellent service, with full explanations of everything needed. Both Chris and Mel answered all emails very promptly and were personable and efficient.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Anonymous

    I would like to thank Chris Hadrill, in particular who handled my case, for all his hard work, expertise and dedication. He listened with empathy and offered suitable advice, which made me feel valued and confident through a difficult time. I would highly recommend Chris and the team at Redmans Solicitors. Thank you.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Yann G

    Yann Guezennec / Chris Hadrill - Thanks for the detailed, informed and professional advice for my settlement. When comprise is the rule I felt we could have been maybe a bit more aggressive from the start. However an acceptable outcome considering the situation. Thank you

    Posted 1 month ago

    Valentina D

    Great service from Mel, she was very good at explaining every part of the settlement agreement and very efficient dealing with the HR team. Very professional team, I would definitely use them again in future if the opportunity came up.

    Posted 1 month ago

    Olaf S

    I was very happy with the service that I have received. Thank You Regards

    Posted 1 month ago

    Rebecca A

    I had a wonderful solicitor called Caroline who was so helpful and gave me all the information I need and explained everything in detail so I was crystal clear. Would highly recommend if you are in need of a solicitor!

    Posted 1 month ago

    Gareth J

    Very efficient, helpful and pragmatic support from Caroline. Happy to work with my requirements / suggestions but also made some very good points which helped to achieve a higher settlement amount. Would highly recommend Caroline and Chris.

    Posted 1 month ago