A seafarer who took Technip to court over allegations of age discrimination as part of a redundancy settlement has lost a court appeal.
For nearly 20 years Edinburgh resident Charles Bathgate worked as a chief officer on several vessels operated by Technip’s UK and Singaporean arms, until he accepted voluntary redundancy in 2017.
However, he sought legal action against the offshore engineering giant after discovering he would not receive additional payments set out in his settlement agreement, due to his age.
It comes amid ongoing concern from maritime unions over the treatment of seafarers and the legal protections offered to those working in UK and international waters.
Experts suggest have also suggested findings from the case on the settling of employment claims could have wider legal implications.
According to legal filings Mr Bathgate worked as chief officer on Technip’s deepwater pipelay and construction vessel Deep Blue from 2008. After ceasing work on the vessel in June 2016, he worked in a variety of onshore roles until he accepted voluntary redundancy in January 2017.
Around the same time, Technip concluded its merger with FMC Technologies to create TechnipFMC (NYSE:FTI).
A settlement agreement with the group stated that Mr Bathgate would receive various payments including enhanced redundancy and notice period pay, as well as an additional payment in June 2017. This latter payment was subject to a separate, collective agreement negotiated by the National Maritime Agency and the marine union Nautilus and covered a series of redundancies.
Yet the collective agreement stipulated that additional payments would only be made to those under the age of 61 – the same age Mr Bathgate was at the time.
He was not advised that he would not receive this payment until June 2017, several months after he had signed his settlement.
Mr Bathgate raised proceedings as part of an employment tribunal, contending that the company’s refusal to pay the additional payment amounted to age discrimination in breach of the Equality Act 2010.
Seafarers and the Equality Act
An initial employment tribunal hearing found that Mr Bathgate could not seek redress from the company, noting that that in leaving its employment he had settled his claim for age discrimination along with other claims as part of the settlement agreement.
Much of the legal argument in the case concerned section 81 of the Equality Act and its applicability to Mr Bathgate in his status as a seafarer.
Lawyers for the company argued that Mr Bathgate fell outside the jurisdiction of the Act and submitted that the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred after his employment ceased.
Having appealed the case, an appeal tribunal held that the settlement agreement could not and did not settle the claim, but ultimately agreed with Technip that Mr Bathgate had been a seafarer during his employment, and had therefore had no right to make a claim for discrimination
Another appeal and cross-appeal, held in November 2023 in the Court of Session, also concluded in favour of Technip.
A judgement published in December found that Mr Bathgate was a seafarer excluded from the protections of the Act, and “could not in that relationship acquire rights as a former employee that he did not have during the course of his employment.”
Anderson Strathern, the law firm which represented Mr Bathgate in the most recent appeal hearing, said it could not comment on clients or cases.
TechnipFMC also declined to comment.
Legal implications
Legal experts have suggested the judgement from the first appeal tribunal on the settling of claims could also have wider implications for employers.
In a 2022 legal blog, Fiona Niven of Collyer Bristow noted that “the ability to settle unknown future claims and the practice of waiving potential claims by way of generic description or statutory reference has been cast into some doubt by the EAT’s decision in Bathgate v. Technip.
“Employers should be aware of the potential litigation risk relating to the scope of a settlement agreement waiver,” she added, recommending that it would be advisable for employers to “explicitly set out, in as much detail as possible, the specific complaints being settled to ensure they are captured by the settlement agreement.”