Mr M Ahmed v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council — 2023

The tribunal found that the claimant had done protected acts by assisting Mr Yaqoob in relation to grievances and proposed tribunal evidence concerning allegations of race discrimination, and that the complaint about failure to place him in a substantive post amounted to conduct extending over a period for limitation purposes until he left WYPF on 15 November 2020. The victimisation claims were therefore in time.

On the facts, however, the tribunal found that the claimant's lack of a substantive post after moving teams in 2015 was not caused by his protected acts. It accepted the respondent's evidence that the move was made in an attempt to resolve difficulties in the contact centre, that managers then tried on a number of occasions to identify or create a suitable role for him, and that some of those attempts were frustrated by council procedures or by the claimant's unwillingness to take on work without a confirmed role. In particular, the tribunal found that Mr Gajra had tried to place the claimant into the Communications Support Officer role, but HR advised that the post had to be advertised, after which another candidate performed better at interview.

The tribunal also found that the claimant was not involved in GDPR implementation because only senior managers were included, was not offered or promised the IT Programme Manager role, and did not pursue the proposed Risk Register work because he wanted a guaranteed substantive post first. As to back pay following the 2020 restructure, the tribunal found that one year's back pay had not been paid, but that this resulted from payroll and HR handling rather than any protected act, and the decision-maker did not know about the claimant's assistance to Mr Yaqoob. The tribunal concluded that the asserted five-year campaign of victimisation was not made out.