A gardener has been awarded £550,000 by an employment tribunal following 
indirect discrimination against disabled workers.  See: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7074251.stm

Apparently this is what he would have earned during the rest of his life (if 
correct about £17kpa) which sounds about right for a gardener.

OTOH his award would generate nearly twice this in interest alone if merely 
deposited in a bank and he won't need to do a stroke for the next thirty 
years.

One can understand large awards if someone suffers traumatic injuries that 
prevent them from ever working again, but this chap has been put in a far 
better position than he would have been than if he hadn't been selected for 
redundancy, and although he might have difficulty finding another job, there 
is nothing to stop him carrying on working!

One can also understand an element of punitive damages where the award 
arises from what is effectively gross misconduct by the employer, but this 
seems out of all proportion.

Oddly it is not the employer that is thinking of appealing, but the union in 
other cases.

-- 

R. Mark Clayton

nospamclayton@btinternet.com
remove nospa for email

PS the employer better be large or insured, or he may not see much of his 
money.

On 4 Nov, 15:46, "R. Mark Clayton" 
wrote:
> A gardener has been awarded £550,000 by an employment tribunal following
> indirect discrimination against disabled workers.  See: -
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7074251.stm
>
> Apparently this is what he would have earned during the rest of his life (if
> correct about £17kpa) which sounds about right for a gardener.
>
> OTOH his award would generate nearly twice this in interest alone if merely
> deposited in a bank and he won't need to do a stroke for the next thirty
> years.
>
> One can understand large awards if someone suffers traumatic injuries that
> prevent them from ever working again, but this chap has been put in a far
> better position than he would have been than if he hadn't been selected for
> redundancy, and although he might have difficulty finding another job, there
> is nothing to stop him carrying on working!
>
> One can also understand an element of punitive damages where the award
> arises from what is effectively gross misconduct by the employer, but this
> seems out of all proportion.
>
> Oddly it is not the employer that is thinking of appealing, but the union in
> other cases.
>
> --
>
> R. Mark Clayton
>
> nospamclay...@btinternet.com
> remove nospa for email
>
> PS the employer better be large or insured, or he may not see much of his
> money.

How can they say that this chap isn't going to work for the next 31
years?  Even by the standards of the Empoyment Tribunals (which now
give scant regard to the compensatory principle) this is absolutely
crazy.

The employer seems to be Veolia Environment Services Lambeth. Company
number 3291258 is Veolia ES Lambeth Ltd, which is probably the one.
Whilst this may not be the biggest company, it may be a part of a
larger group under the Veolia umbrella, which probably could pick up
the tab.