Who should be included in redundancy consultations?
Get instant, expert answers to your HR questions...
A Goldman Sachs employee (Reeves) has won an employment tribunal for sex discrimination and unfair dismissal after he took contractual six-month paternity leave.
Reeves, the claimant argued that the financial giant treated him less favourably than they would have treated a female employee taking extended leave related to child birth after he went on parental leave from November 2021 to May 2022 after the birth of his second child.
The tribunal acknowledged that Goldman Sachs runs a generous paternity leave programme significantly exceeding statutory pay, which was introduced in April 2020. This gives all employees up to 26 weeks of paid leave within 12 months of the birth or legal adoption of their child. Reeves refuted Goldman Sachs’ claims that he had performed worse than his peers, which led to his pay being cut in January 2022.
He was subsequently put at risk of redundancy in May 2022 and he claimed the company did not score him against two other staff whose jobs were also at risk. He was made redundant in September 2022.
Reeves raised a further complaint at the tribunal that he had been overlooked for promotion, which had been discussed by his senior managers back in 2018 when they said he should be ‘cross-ruffed’ for promotion.
Reeves claimed that management were more empathic towards female employees in relation to childcare.
During Reeves’ paternity leave a redundancy process kicked in. As Goldman Sachs does not have a redundancy policy, no formal consultation meetings were offered to the claimant, nor was there a structured process conducted in writing, in the course of which he was invited to comment on the proposal to dismiss him, or to suggest alternatives.
Within five days of the redundancy alert, a decision was taken to restructure the control room department although this did not take place until June in the end, but HR took over communications with Reeves in early May. By 26 May, he still did not have official confirmation that ‘his role was being eliminated’ in Reeves’ words.
Once his paternity leave officially ended, he received a letter stating that ‘the consultation period had ended’ on 5 June 2022, his job was being terminated and he was being put on garden leave for three months. There was no evidence that alternative roles were found for Reeves.
Goldman Sachs contended that, ‘whether characterised as a redundancy or business reorganisation (SOSR) termination, where an employer can perform the same functions better, with fewer people and at lower cost, that is both a redundancy and a substantial reason for termination of the employee who is no longer needed’.
The tribunal ruled that Goldman Sachs International ‘subjected the claimant to sex discrimination when it alleged that he had performed worse than his peers, reduced his remuneration and dismissed him’.
It added that ‘it was 50% likely that the respondent would have dismissed the claimant fairly, and for non-discriminatory reasons, and for the principal reason of redundancy, following a fair process’. A compensation hearing will take place next year.
Visit BrAInbox today where you can find answers to questions like When do I start the redundancy consultation process?