Case 1600538/2016 · Employment Tribunal
- MR A BOUSFIELD (COUNSEL) FOR THE v Respondent — 2018
- Case reference
- 1600538/2016
- Decision date
- 27 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Mrs M Walters, Mrs M Humphries
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- MR A BOUSFIELD (COUNSEL) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a clinical academic surgeon employed by Cardiff University, was dismissed on 29 February 2016 under the Medic Forward redundancy programme. The tribunal rejected attempts to infer discrimination from the Athena Swan application, the Bhugra review, and criticism of the equality impact assessment, holding that those matters did not support any inference about the treatment of the claimant.
The pre-dismissal complaints concerned events between 2010 and 2014, including training feedback, appraisal issues, a 2012 meeting about research output, the proposed 2013 suspension, a refused transfer request, and the handling of two grievances. Applying the Igen v Wong burden of proof and the Robertson v Bexley Community Centre / s.33 Limitation Act factors, the tribunal held that the earlier allegations were out of time and refused to extend time. It also held that the grievance history did not establish harassment.
On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the June 2013 disclosure to Melanie Wortham expressly referred to race discrimination, but held that the earlier complaints did not identify race in the way required by Fullah v Medical Research Council and that there was no evidence that the decision-makers in the alleged retaliatory acts knew of the protected act. It therefore dismissed the victimisation claim.
The tribunal found Medic Forward to be a genuine redundancy exercise based on areas of research activity rather than individual performance. It held that "Surgery Research" was a logical selection pool, that Professor Kynaston and Ms Hargest were properly outside that pool because of their roles at CVUHB and CCMRC, and that the claimant's work did not align with the School of Dentistry or CCMRC. It accepted that Dr Bronwen Evans had clear alignment with CCMRC, which explained her different treatment, and rejected the direct race discrimination allegations, the automatic unfair dismissal allegation under s.104 ERA 1996, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, and the breach of contract claim for 12 months' notice. All claims were dismissed and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal allegation under s.104 ERA 1996 based on the claimant's earlier unlawful deduction from wages proceedings; the tribunal found the redundancy reason genuine and no evidence of dismissal for that reason. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim arising from the Medic Forward redundancy process; the tribunal held that redundancy was the genuine reason and that the dismissal was fair. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination allegations about the selection pool, comparator treatment, and failure to realign the claimant to CCMRC or the School of Dentistry were rejected; the tribunal found no prima facie case under the Igen v Wong approach. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race harassment allegations based on pre-dismissal complaints, appraisal issues, grievance handling, and the redundancy process were dismissed; the tribunal held that the earlier matters were out of time and no harassment was proved. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted that the June 2013 complaint to Melanie Wortham expressly raised race discrimination, but held that earlier complaints did not identify race as required by Fullah and that there was no evidence the alleged decision-makers knew of the protected act. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Igen v Wong test
- Fullah v Medical Research Council
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- s.33 Limitation Act factors
- s.104 ERA 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.