2023年5月16日

我5月15日2023 / / 12:33 UTC IBM係統架構師在休病假自2008年以來成功試圖起訴藍色巨人,聲稱殘疾歧視在工資和更多。伊恩·克利福德為英國蓮花開發工作了就在一年多前他與業務轉移到它的新主人在2001年7月。在2008年他繼續長期病假,籌得了他的第一筆不滿2012年9月,幾個月後妥協協議簽訂。根據就業法庭的記錄在閱讀,聽到Clifford最初的所有這些年前抱怨他不授予在他缺席工作,工資上漲,這相當於“殘疾歧視。他聲稱休假工資。蓮花員工福利的條款下,IBM對齊疾病和事故與員工福利計劃移動,切換到一個IBM合同。克利福德說他沒有收到他享有的福利。妥協協議看到Clifford轉移到IBM的殘疾計劃並同意他將被視為一個激勵員工,這使他有資格獲得75%的目標收益的£72037 .44點從4月6日,2013年,直到他退休或者停止這個計劃。他有權得到好處了34年的開始日期。而且,他仍是一個“活躍分子”IBM的養老金計劃; was paid £8,685 to resolve holiday claims; and further agreed he'd no longer accrue annual leave. The agreement was intended to "cover all complaints or claims against" IBM, and Clifford agreed to not re-litigate grievances or complaints settled in the compromise agreement, which were similar to the company's Disability Plan Guidelines. Under the Disability Plan, IBM made no guarantee to increase salaries for members. Yet as part of the compromise, Clifford's salary was increased by 1.7 percent backdated to July 2011. In the latest case brought by Clifford, he claimed he was "treated unfavourably" as he had received no salary review or rise since joining the Disability Plan in 2013; being paid 75 percent of salary ($54,024) was "indirect discrimination as a non-disabled employee would be paid 100 percent of salary during holiday"; and he claimed he is entitled to more than £69,500 in "unlawful deduction from pay" since April 2013. Clifford's submission stated: "While the Plan referred to discretion to review payments under the Plan, not giving a right to a review or an increase, it was disability discrimination not to increase the payments in the years since 2013. With inflation now running at over 10 percent the value of the payments would soon wither. The point of the Plan was to give security to employees not able to work. That was not achieved if payments were for ever frozen." IBM asked for the case to be struck out, saying that much of the claims were out of time and the compromise agreement barred Clifford from re-litigating claims including holiday entitlement. As he was not allowed to take holiday, this could therefore not be carried over. Judge Housego agreed and the claims were struck out as they had "no reasonable prospect of success." "That active employees may get pay rises, but inactive employees do not is a difference, but is not, in my judgment, a detriment caused by something arising from disability. "The complaint is in fact that the benefit of being an inactive employee on the Plan is not generous enough, because the payments have been at a fixed level since 6 April 2013, now 10 years, and may remain so.