Ms C Jennings, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019

The claimant had worked for the respondent for 23 years in Treasury Remittance, where most of his work was clearing sterling for the bank worldwide. In late 2015 the respondent decided in principle to cease that clearing work, which meant about 80% to 90% of the claimant’s duties would disappear. The tribunal found that the claimant should have been told about the risk of redundancy by May or June 2016, but accepted that the respondent was not yet operating a formal redundancy process at that stage.

The tribunal found that the first role offered on 1 August 2016, the back office/middle office officer role, was a real and permanent role rather than a sham, and that the claimant unreasonably declined it. It also found that the finance/admin officer role became the key alternative role, but the respondent failed to tell the claimant about it when it first arose, allowed external recruitment to proceed, and only gave him an interview at the last moment. The tribunal found that there was a 75% chance he would have accepted the finance/admin role at SO grade if it had been properly offered, and a 50% chance he would have accepted a possible customised role built around remaining treasury work.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal held that there was a genuine redundancy situation but the dismissal was unfair because the respondent did not fairly pursue suitable alternative employment. On direct race discrimination, it found that the claimant was not appointed to the finance/admin role because the respondent had never planned to give him the job and the successful candidate had better statutory reporting experience; the tribunal accepted that the wording used about being a fit for UOB was ill advised, but did not find that race caused the decision. The indirect discrimination argument was not developed and was dismissed as a repetition of the direct discrimination case, and the victimisation claim failed because the detriments had already occurred before the protected acts. The tribunal reserved remedy and recorded that if the parties required a remedy hearing they should apply jointly; no quantified award was made in the judgment.