Mr. M Charalambous v Barnsley College — 2021

At the preliminary hearing on 10 November 2021, Employment Judge Buckley considered two issues: whether the claimant had made protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996, and whether the beliefs he relied on in relation to Black Lives Matter were protected philosophical beliefs under s.10 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Duncan Bulloch, read the bundle and watched video excerpts, and stressed that its findings were limited to the evidence before it.

On the whistleblowing issue, the claimant had spoken and emailed on 22 September 2020 about a former apprentice apparently being awarded an NVQ that he had not earned. The tribunal accepted that he disclosed information and that he believed an investigation was in the public interest, but it found that he did not believe the information tended to show any of the matters in s.43B(1)(a) to (f). It also found that any such belief would not have been reasonable because there were several possible innocent explanations, including error by the respondent, the awarding body, or the student. The protected disclosure allegation was therefore dismissed, and the detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims failed with it.

On religion or belief, the tribunal identified the claimant's asserted beliefs as a lack of belief in the Black Lives Matter movement and a belief that the respondent should not support a political movement like Black Lives Matter with the characteristics he described in his ET1. It accepted that those views were genuinely held and that they were more than trivial, but held that the Black Lives Matter movement was shown on the evidence to be an umbrella term for disparate political views and that there was insufficient evidence of cogency or cohesion for the claimed lack of belief to satisfy Grainger (iv). The alternative belief was also found to be too confined and parochial, and not sufficiently serious or important. The direct religion or belief discrimination claim was dismissed, and the tribunal recorded that no claims remained, so the final hearing was vacated.