Mr M Dad v Birmingham City Council — 2023

The Claimant, a long-serving Service Manager in the Respondent's waste management function, was disciplined after action was taken in relation to an employee, Mr Peach, who refused to sign for PPE. The Tribunal found that the disciplinary process against the Claimant was not an objective or impartial exercise, and that the process was driven by concerns about industrial relations and appeasing Unite representatives rather than by the weight of the evidence.

The harassment related to race claim succeeded only in respect of the advertisement of the Claimant's post while he was suspended and the treatment of his office and possessions. The Tribunal found those matters suggested he was not expected to return, that comparable White managers had not been treated in the same way, and that the Respondent had not shown race played no part. Other alleged harassment matters, including a mocking comment and the prejudged disciplinary process, were not found to be related to race.

The direct race discrimination claim succeeded in part. The Tribunal found the Claimant was treated less favourably than a hypothetical White comparator, informed by the treatment of Mr Williams, because he alone was made subject to the bullying and intimidation allegation in the relevant way and required to transfer out of Waste Management as a condition of the final written warning. The Respondent's explanation for the difference was not accepted. Other direct race discrimination complaints, including suspension, investigation, mediation, grievance handling and mentoring, were dismissed.

The victimisation, health and safety detriment, direct sex discrimination, and indirect race discrimination claims were dismissed. The unlawful deduction claim succeeded because normal pay during suspension was held to include the bank holiday payments the Claimant would normally have received, based on his usual pattern of working 6 of 8 bank holidays each year.