Mr M Hasan v IFM Bolton Limited — 2023

Mr Hasan was employed from November 2017 as an Electrical Biomedical Engineering technician at Band 6. The respondent began an informal capability process in March 2018 after concerns arose about his work, restricted his duties, and repeatedly asked him to identify training needs. The tribunal found the claimant did not clearly identify further training he needed, remained on restricted duties, and was later moved into a formal capability process with agreed testing in January 2020.

The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. It found the reason for dismissal was capability, that the respondent honestly believed Mr Hasan was not capable of performing the Band 6 role, and that belief was supported by the capability report and the January 2020 tests. Applying section 98(4) ERA 1996 and Alidair v Taylor, the tribunal held the respondent acted within the band of reasonable responses because it had offered support and training, gave the claimant the option of Band 4 work, allowed an appeal against downgrade, and only dismissed after he refused the lower-grade post.

The direct discrimination claim based on race and religion and belief was dismissed. The tribunal rejected the allegations that Mr Moran's questions about the claimant's whereabouts, the T34 request, the Inomax test, the comments attributed to Ms Stanton, the salary-band reduction, and the contacts with Keele University and the NHS North West Fraud Prevention Team were because of protected characteristics. It found Mr Moran had genuine service and health and safety concerns, that the claimant was permitted to pray, that the qualification checks were prompted by the mismatch between the claimant's CV and the concerns that arose in practice, and that the challenged comments by Ms Stanton were not made. It found allegations 7 and 8 were factually correct in substance, but not discriminatory.

The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed. The tribunal held that downgrading was a permitted outcome under the respondent's capability policy, that the claimant's contract incorporated those policies, and that one month's notice was given before the move to Band 4. On that basis, the reduction in pay was not an unauthorised deduction.