Mr S Hassane v GlaxoSmithKline Services Ltd — 2018

The claimant brought claims of ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, protected-disclosure detriment, direct discrimination and harassment on age, race and religion or belief, together with redundancy pay, holiday pay and notice pay issues. The tribunal found that the alleged January and April 2018 disclosures were not proved on the evidence, so they were not protected disclosures. It accepted that the 8 October 2018 letter was a protected disclosure, but held that the only later matters relied on as detriments, including the cessation of IT access and the pay-calculation complaints, were not shown to be detriments caused by that letter.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had carried out a genuine reorganisation of the Global Health Unit and that the claimant's role was genuinely redundant within the meaning of s.139 ERA 1996. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the future direction of the unit meant the claimant's work would cease or shrink substantially, that consultation began in August 2018, that he was given notice on 30 September 2018, and that his appeal was heard and rejected in December 2018. The tribunal also said that, even if redundancy had not been the correct label, the dismissal would in any event have been fair for SOSR. Applying s.98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell range-of-reasonable-responses approach, it held that the respondent acted reasonably.

The age, race and religion or belief discrimination and harassment claims all failed. The tribunal found that the claimant did not advance evidence-in-chief on these claims, so the burden of proof did not shift under s.136 Equality Act 2010. It rejected the age and race comparator cases, found no evidence that the role changes, the refusal of an extension, or the denial of other roles were because of age or race, and accepted the respondent's non-discriminatory explanations where they were addressed. On religion or belief, it found that the 21 August 2018 consultation was not deliberately arranged to coincide with Eid Aladha and that the claimant had not established the other alleged incidents, including the later meeting date and the lunch point.

The pay claims were also dismissed. The tribunal found that the statutory redundancy payment had been correctly calculated, including reference to the £508 weekly cap and the £3,048 figure identified in the issues. It held that the notice period complied with the claimant's amended terms of service and that he was paid for that period. No remedy award was made on any head, and the tribunal's final order was that all claims were dismissed.