Voluntary severance withdrawal refused: mutual agreement not dismissal
A finance business partner with 21 years' service tried to withdraw from a voluntary severance scheme the day after signing. The tribunal upheld Network Rail's refusal, finding no dismissal and no age discrimination.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #age-discrimination
- #voluntary-severance-scheme
- #performance-rating
- #grievance
- #mutual-agreement
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Finance Business Partner from 30 May 2000 until 31 January 2022.
- The claimant applied for and was accepted into the Industry Special Voluntary Severance Scheme in September 2021.
- The claimant signed a binding agreement on 8 November 2021 and attempted to withdraw the next day.
- The respondent refused to allow withdrawal, citing scheme rules that once signed the agreement was binding.
- The claimant alleged age discrimination and harassment based on a conversation with his manager about his age and retirement.
- The tribunal found no undue pressure and that the termination was by mutual agreement, not dismissal.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant raised a grievance against his line manager, later expanded to include age discrimination allegations.
-
Grievance appeal outcome
Grievance partially upheld; claimant moved to a different team.
-
Scheme briefing
Claimant attended briefing on the Industry Special Voluntary Severance Scheme.
-
Meeting with Zubair Kari
Claimant met new line manager; discussion included claimant's age and retirement plans.
-
Interim performance review
Claimant received a 'partially achieved' rating, which he disputed.
-
Scheme application
Claimant applied for voluntary severance under the scheme.
-
Application approved
Executive Review Panel approved claimant's application.
-
Signed agreement
Claimant signed the formal agreement to leave under the scheme.
-
Withdrawal request refused
Claimant asked to withdraw but was told the agreement was binding.
-
Employment terminated
Claimant's employment ended by mutual agreement.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was dismissed or left by mutual agreement, and whether the respondent's actions amounted to age discrimination, harassment, or victimisation.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the claimant voluntarily applied for and signed a binding severance agreement, and that Network Rail was entitled to refuse his withdrawal request the next day. The termination was by mutual agreement, not dismissal.
The age discrimination claim failed because the tribunal did not accept that the manager's comments about the claimant's age and retirement were linked to the severance process. The performance rating and grievance handling were also found to be fair.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed entirely.
Lessons & takeaways
- Voluntary severance agreements can become binding immediately upon signature, so think carefully before signing.
- A tribunal will not treat a mutual agreement termination as a dismissal, even if you later regret it.
- Age discrimination claims require clear evidence that age was a factor in the employer's decision, not just stray comments.
- Long service does not give you a right to withdraw from a signed agreement unless the contract or scheme allows it.
When a voluntary exit becomes binding
This case shows the risks of signing a voluntary severance agreement without being absolutely sure. The claimant, a finance business partner with 21 years' service, applied for Network Rail's Industry Special Voluntary Severance Scheme in September 2021. After his application was approved, he signed the formal agreement on 8 November 2021. The very next day he asked to withdraw, but Network Rail refused, citing scheme rules that the agreement was binding once signed. His employment ended on 31 January 2022.
The tribunal had to decide whether this was a dismissal or a mutual agreement. It found that the claimant had freely applied, had not been pressured, and had signed a valid contract. The refusal to allow withdrawal did not turn the termination into a dismissal. This meant the unfair dismissal claim could not succeed.
Age discrimination and other claims
The claimant also alleged age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation. He pointed to a conversation with his new line manager in September 2021, where the manager asked about his age and retirement plans. The tribunal accepted the conversation happened but found it was not linked to the severance scheme. The manager was simply getting to know the claimant. The performance rating of 'partially achieved' given shortly after was also found to be genuine, not a way to push him out.
The tribunal noted that the claimant had raised a grievance in 2019 about a different manager, which was partially upheld. But there was no evidence that the 2021 events were retaliation for that grievance.
What Network Rail did right
Network Rail had clear scheme rules, a formal approval process, and gave the claimant time to consider. When he tried to withdraw, they explained the position but did not bully or threaten him. The tribunal found no procedural unfairness. For employers, this case confirms that a well-documented voluntary severance process can withstand challenge, even when the employee has long service.
For employees, the lesson is clear: once you sign a binding exit agreement, you may not be able to change your mind. If you have doubts, seek advice before signing, not after.
Similar cases
Café worker automatically unfairly dismissed for asserting right to written contract
A café worker with only six months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after asking for a written contract. The tribunal awarded over £2,000 including injury to feelings for age discrimination.
Taxi driver found to be employee and worker, awarded £5,181 for unlawful deductions
A private hire taxi driver was found to be an employee of the vehicle owner and a worker of the dispatch company. He was awarded £5,181.48 for unlawful deduction of wages, but his age discrimination claim was dismissed.
Payments consultant allowed to add minimum wage and wrongful dismissal claims
A tribunal has granted a payments consultant permission to amend his claim to include wrongful dismissal and National Minimum Wage complaints, but refused to add automatic unfair dismissal. The case highlights the hurdles of bringing claims when working through a limited company.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.