Sacked Executive Who Was Called an Old Fossil Gets £3 mil Payout in Age Discrimination Case

In Mr Glenn Cowie v Vesuvius Plc and Others, a senior executive received a £3 mil payout, one of the largest awards ever given by an employment tribunal. This followed his unfair dismissal after being called an “old fossil” despite his nearly four-decade-long career with the organisation. Delve into the circumstances of the case and the reasons behind the tribunal’s significant financial award below.

If you have any questions or have faced age discrimination at work, contact Redmans Solicitors now. As employment law specialists, we can discuss your case and uncover whether you have an eligible workplace discrimination claim. To get started, simply:

The Facts in Mr Glenn Cowie v Vesuvius Plc and Others

Background to the £3 Mil Payout

Mr Glenn Cowie (“The Claimant”) began working for Vesuvius Plc (“The Respondent”) in 1981 as a laboratory assistant. Over the course of his extensive career, the claimant steadily advanced through various roles, culminating in his appointment as the Business Unit President for Foseco within the respondent. By 2017, he commanded a salary of $410,000, alongside a substantial overall benefits package.

On 1 September 2017, the respondent appointed Patrick Andre as their CEO. Under Mr Andre’s leadership, the respondent experienced significant structural and strategic changes. This included a rejuvenation of the organisation, with directives to dismiss older employees.

Mr Andre’s management philosophy was further visible during a meeting in February 2018 in Brazil. During this meeting, he remarked, “These new millennials will never stop pushing until they have my job, and you guys have to get used to it”. Additionally, the claimant alleged that Mr Andre lectured him for 45 minutes, calling him an “old fossil” and asserting that he lacked the ability to manage millennials.

Respondent Forces Move to the UK

In May 2018, Mr Andre proposed relocating the claimant to the UK, citing performance concerns. According to Mr Andre, he informed the claimant that he had six months to improve, and the claimant accepted this challenge. However, the claimant disputed this account, stating he wouldn’t have accepted such a challenge without consulting his wife. Settled in the US with his family and having serious medical reasons to remain there, he was reluctant to move.

Despite his reservations, the claimant relocated to the UK on 17 October, incurring moving costs of £274,132.37, which he expected the respondent to cover. That same day, executive search agency Egon Zehnder was tasked with finding a potential replacement for the claimant. The respondent claimed this was an “initial talent mapping” and no more than a “preliminary investigation”.

While the claimant was in the UK, his division’s revenue increased by 4.9% and trading profits by 5.7%. The CEO acknowledged this financial performance improvement, but in February 2019, he decided he would sack the claimant anyway.

Subsequently, on 19 March, Egon Zehnder was tasked with finding the claimant’s replacement. This materialised to be 51-year-old Karena Cancilleri, who signed her employment contract with the respondent in July.

Claimant Alleges Discrimination Based on Age

The claimant was unaware that the respondent had been searching for his replacement. He only discovered this when Mr Andre informed him of his dismissal on 1 August, claiming it wasn’t personal. The claimant disagreed and, after being placed on garden leave until 1 March 2020, filed a grievance on 1 October. He alleged age discrimination and unfair dismissal.

The grievance was handled by HR lead Agnieszka Tomczak, who concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the claims. The claimant appealed this decision, but the appeal failed. Concerned about his entitlements, reputation, and future career prospects, the claimant began legal proceedings. In May 2020, following failed attempts at ACAS early conciliation, he brought claims of age discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Employment Tribunal Awards £3 Mil Payout

In a detailed ruling, the employment tribunal began by addressing the unfair dismissal claim. Here, they found that the claimant wasn’t given prior written notice, a chance to respond, formal warnings, or opportunities to improve performance. As such, because of the lack of due process, they found the dismissal to be unreasonable and unfair.

Regarding the age discrimination claim, the tribunal acknowledged the respondent’s non-discriminatory reasons for dismissal. This included friction between the claimant and Mr Andre over business strategies and performance.

However, while Mr Andre’s assertion that the claimant was on notice to improve his performance was accepted, the tribunal noted that his performance had improved. Given the claimant’s proximity to retirement age and inconsistencies found in Mr Andre’s reasons for dismissal, the tribunal concluded that age was a factor. As such, they ruled his dismissal amounted to age discrimination.

Following the ruling in the claimant’s favour, a remedy hearing was scheduled. Here, it was established that the respondent should pay £3,171,723 to the claimant. The £3 mil payout goes down as one of the largest awards ever made by an employment tribunal.

If you have any questions about workplace discrimination after reading about the case involving the £3 mil payout, contact us today. Redmans Solicitors are employment law specialists with years of experience. Following a quick chat, we can answer your questions and navigate you through the legal process if you’re eligible.

Begin your journey with us now by: