Rafieu Alharazim v Bournemouth Churches Housing Association — 2024

The claimant worked for Bournemouth Churches Housing Association from 2 August 2021 to 28 January 2022 as a Senior Service Charge Officer. The tribunal found that the role required site visits and that, after an initial period under Ms Oladipupo, Mr Panesar became the claimant's manager and raised concerns at week 16 and week 20 probation reviews about site attendance, communication and service charge capability. It accepted those concerns were genuinely and reasonably held, while also noting failings by the respondent, including not uploading probation reviews to Cezanne, not setting targets, late disclosure of the week 20 minutes and Ms Oladipupo not raising concerns directly with the claimant.

On the whistleblowing and health and safety claims, the tribunal rejected the alleged disclosure on 7 January 2022 and found that at the 17 January 2022 suitability meeting the claimant said words to the effect that the respondent owed him a duty of care and that he was not inoculated to go to certain places, and separately alleged discrimination. It held those comments did not amount to qualifying disclosures because they lacked sufficient factual content, were not made in the public interest, and did not show a reasonable belief that health or safety was being or was likely to be endangered. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not established that any protected disclosure, or any health and safety disclosure, was the principal reason for dismissal; it found the dismissal was because of performance.

The direct race discrimination and victimisation claims also failed. The tribunal did not accept that Mr Panesar's criticisms of service charge work or his referral to HR were because of race, nationality or ethnicity, and it found that Mr Sager was not an appropriate comparator because his role and management position were different. Although the tribunal accepted that the claimant had done protected acts by alleging discrimination, it found the dismissal and later appeal outcome were not because of those acts. The notice pay claim failed because one week's notice had been paid in lieu, and the holiday pay claim failed because the tribunal accepted the respondent had already paid £102.84 for the six hours of annual leave it found remained outstanding.