Mr A Mahbub v Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust AT A FINAL HEARING Heard: Remotely, via CVP — 2021

Mr A Mahbub, who is of Asian Bangladeshi origin, moved into an Assistant Practitioner - Physiotherapy role in January 2019 and then had a further period of sickness absence because of a long-standing back condition. The tribunal found that Ms Logan's management of the stage 2 sickness absence process, including the 12 March 2019 telephone call and the 1 April 2019 review meeting, was driven by the attendance policy and occupational health process rather than race. It rejected the alleged comment that 'most people from your community have two jobs'.

The tribunal accepted that the meeting on 1 April 2019 included discussion of a previous medical procedure and the remark '10 days for that', but it found that topic was not related to race. It also found that concerns expressed about the claimant's ability to do the role were legitimate in light of the manual-handling aspects of the job and the occupational health advice. The functional skills and foundation degree issues were treated as deferred rather than cancelled, and the decision to focus on competencies was found to be a reasonable management response to his absence and slow progress.

On direct discrimination, the tribunal dismissed the claims concerning the Ward 27 lunch-room incident and the instruction to raise concerns with Ms Logan and Ms Riley. It found Sister Brown's decision about the staff room was based on space and ward conventions, and that the instruction about who to speak to arose from concern about confusion and the need for a clear line of communication. It also held that the allegations said to have occurred on 12 March and 1 April 2019 were strictly out of time, and that there was no continuing discriminatory act to bring them within time.

On harassment, the tribunal applied the statutory requirement that the conduct be unwanted and related to race, and referred to the objective threshold discussed in Richmond Pharmacology v Dhaliwal and Grant v HM Land Registry & Another. It found that the alleged conduct, whether viewed individually or cumulatively, did not satisfy the racial causal link or the seriousness required by section 26.

On victimisation, the tribunal accepted that the 27 April 2019 complaint and the 19 September 2019 grievance were protected acts, but it found no causal link between those acts and the later detriments relied on. The disciplinary investigation into the bank-shift payment issue had already started before the grievance, the functional-skills point was not shown to be a detriment because the training was deferred alongside the foundation degree, and Sister Brown was not aware of the earlier complaint when she told the claimant not to use the Ward 27 staff room. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.