A former HSBC risk chief has lost his claims for discrimination and unfair dismissal, with a judge ruling that he had lost his job in a genuine and fair redundancy situation not motivated by his race.
Mr Hashmi, head of financial risk management at the high street bank, was told he was at risk of redundancy in August 2020 because of a reduced requirement for the type of work he carried out. He was in a redundancy pool of one, but the exercise was part of a wider restructure that put 35,000 jobs at risk.
He raised a complaint through the bank’s internal grievance procedure, alleging that he was “facing discriminatory action by the well entrenched old guard who are protecting their own people from job loss” and relied upon his status as a cancer survivor to “qualify” under equality legislation.
He did not pursue a disability discrimination case at the employment tribunal.
He lodged a further complaint, stating “some of the other roles are being protected to protect some people who are connected with the management at the very senior levels”.
The redundancy consultation concluded in October 2022 and Hashmi was told his role would be made redundant from 31 December 2020.
The employment tribunal in London found there was a genuine redundancy situation and that the company carried out a fair and proper consultation, adopting a fair, cogent and reasoned basis for selecting his role for redundancy.
In November 2020, a temporary role in HSBC’s wholesale credit risk function was offered to the claimant on a 12-month fixed-term contract. He accepted the offer, which temporarily suspended the rest of his redundancy notice period. Either party could terminate the temporary redeployment before the 12-month period was up.
The temporary role saw him work alongside Mr Soppitt. Soon after starting the position, Soppitt raised concerns about Hashmi’s performance and attitude and he was not completing the tasks he was assigned.
Hashmi told the tribunal that he did not agree with what he was being asked to do or the manner in which he was being asked to work.
The claimant argued he made several protected disclosures during his time in the temporary role, including an email that claimed managers were “blocking” proposals, and informing the Bank of England that HSBC was “getting the credit risk and data risk transformation very wrong and at considerable cost in time and resources”. However, the tribunal found these did not amount to protected disclosures.
In October 2021 Hashmi was informed his temporary redeployment would not be extended beyond 31 December. He complained that role was being terminated in retaliation for his whistleblowing.
The claimant revisited a host of complaints and allegations about what he believed was HSBC’s true motivation for ending
the temporary role. He alleged that the organisation was “the last stand of the British Raj and Empire”.
He was informed he would be placed on garden leave and that the temporary role would end on 30 November 2021. The reasons for this included his performance and attitude towards the tasks allocated to him.
Although he did not pursue a claim of whistleblowing detriment, the tribunal concluded that Hashmi had not been treated unfavourably for making complaints.
Employment Judge Stephen Povey said: “Rather than treating the claimant detrimentally for sharing his views and opinions, the respondent, at every level of management, listened to the claimant and afforded him a platform. They gave him their time and they facilitated his access to increasingly senior levels of the Respondent’s executive. In many ways, the respondent went above and beyond what would be expected of a reasonable employer in accommodating the claimant.
“Ultimately, the respondent disagreed with the claimant’s thoughts and opinions, a conclusion which they were reasonably entitled to and which was open to them on the basis of what the claimant was sharing with them. There was no detriment, just a difference of opinion.”
Even if Hashmi had made protected disclosures, the reasons for ending the temporary role included his conduct and behaviour, which HSBC was entitled to do.
Responding to the allegation that HSBC Group Management Services had directly discriminated against him on grounds of race when it selected him for redundancy and decided to terminate his temporary employment early, the tribunal found “no evidence whatsoever that the claimant was selected for redundancy, pooled or made redundant because of his race”, and reached the same conclusion in relation to the early termination.
The judgment says: “Those reasons had nothing to do with the claimant’s race and everything to do with his conduct and his behaviour.”
HSBC declined to comment.
Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance
Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday
HR opportunities in Accountancy, Banking, Finance and Insurance on Personnel Today
Browse more HR opportunities in Accountancy, Banking, Finance and Insurance