A 66-year-old waste worker who claimed he had been singled out because he was offered a chair by a colleague has lost an age discrimination case.
Filipe Edreira, who worked for Severn Waste Services (SWS), claimed that he had been on the receiving end of discrimination and harassment, and that his colleagues were trying to “force him out” because of his age.
He was the only person aged over 66 at the recycling operator, although there were four staff over 60 and around half over 50 at the 80-person company. He had worked there since 2006 until he was dismissed in October 2023.
At tribunal, he listed a number of incidents which he believed amounted to discriminatory behaviour. These included being moved from his usual station to cabins handling more cumbersome materials, while other staff were not.
He claimed that one of his colleagues had told his wife (who still works at the company) that a manager “did not want people aged over 66 working there”.
Age discrimination
On one occasion a colleague asked Edreira if he wanted a chair, which he felt stood out as no-one else was offered a seat in the same situation.
On another, he informed SWS that he needed some time off as he was sick but received a letter warning him about being absent without leave – something the company said was a mistake. He claimed that a younger colleague had not received a similar letter.
In July 2022 he submitted a grievance saying he was stressed and harassed at work because his duties had changed and he had been sent the absent without leave letter.
The company apologised for sending the letter in error, but other aspects of the grievance were not upheld.
Edreira then complained after another change in duties meant he would have to lift heavier materials, and SWS said he would be offered support to pause operations and get help.
After some 15-months of sick leave, Edreira was eventually dismissed. The company told the tribunal that during that period it had undertaken a detailed welfare process with referrals to occupational health, something which would demonstrate its commitment to retaining the employee.
The tribunal dismissed the claim, but did point out that the offer of the chair could be viewed as “unusual”.
“The question is whether a reasonable employee in the claimant’s situation could see it as detrimental, that is to his disadvantage. Given that we found it was an unusual thing to do, in our judgment the claimant could legitimately conclude that he was being treated differently to others and therefore disadvantageously,” the judgment said.
The tribunal did point out that the moves to different areas of the facility had shown “a lack of awareness of the claimant’s health needs which were both genuine and substantial”, and that SWS was guilty of poor record-keeping, but the behaviour did not amount to age discrimination.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
Employee relations opportunities on Personnel Today
Browse more Employee Relations jobs
