Ian Clifford, a man who spent 15 years on sick leave and later sued IBM for not receiving a pay rise, insists that his actions were not driven by greed, but by a need for fairness. Clifford worked for the tech giant, IBM, until he had to take time off in September 2008 due to health issues. Initially signed off for mental health reasons, he was later diagnosed with stage four leukaemia in 2012.
Clifford, who claimed to have been medically retired in 2013, raised concerns when he realized he hadn’t received a pay rise or holiday pay during his extended time off from work. He then filed a grievance against IBM, arguing that over the five years of his absence, his pay had remained stagnant, despite his agreement to stay on the company’s disability plan, which allowed him to earn three-quarters of his annual salary without any obligation to work.
Under the disability plan, Clifford was supposed to earn £54,028 annually until he turned 65, which would amount to about £1.5 million during his time on sick leave. However, since his pay had not been adjusted since 2013, he decided to take legal action against the company, claiming that the failure to increase his salary was unfair and left him financially vulnerable.
In February 2022, Clifford filed a case against IBM in an employment tribunal, citing disability discrimination and arguing that the lack of salary increases had resulted in his income losing value due to inflation. He felt that the purpose of the disability plan, which was supposed to provide security for employees who could no longer work, had been undermined by the frozen payments.
Despite Clifford’s claims, the tribunal dismissed his case, ruling that he was still receiving a substantial benefit and favorable treatment. The judge noted that even if his income lost value over time, he was still receiving a very generous benefit in comparison to what he would have been entitled to in other situations.
Clifford explained his motivations for the legal battle, revealing that he had used his savings to finance the case and had even borrowed money on a credit card to continue the fight. As someone undergoing chemotherapy and aware of his limited life expectancy, he said that his goal was to secure financial stability for his family, especially his son who was heading to university. While some might view his actions as greedy, Clifford maintained that he was merely seeking the benefits he was entitled to as part of his employment contract.
Despite the tribunal’s decision, Clifford still believed that he had been treated unfairly by IBM, and emphasized that he had always considered himself a loyal employee of the company.
