Mr UM Nwakwu v London Borough of Redbridge — 2020

The tribunal found that the claimant was employed on a series of fixed-term extensions to provide continuity in adult brokerage services while the respondent merged adult and children's brokerage functions and trained permanent staff for the new structure. It accepted the respondent's evidence that permanent employees were prioritised for children's services work and training because they would remain in the merged service, while the claimant's role was to maintain adult service provision during the transition.

On dismissal and notice, the tribunal held that the claimant lacked the service needed for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim and had to show a regulation 6 Fixed-term Employees Regulations protected-act dismissal. It found that the first complaint alleging less favourable treatment because of fixed-term status was the grievance submitted on 26 October 2018, but the decision not to renew had already been taken by 15 October 2018. The wrongful dismissal claim also failed because the fixed term expired by effluxion of time and, in any event, the claimant had been told on 19 September 2018 that his employment would end on 26 October 2018.

The discrimination and fixed-term status claims were dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant was not appointed to permanent roles in 2016 and 2018 because of interview performance, not race. It found that the younger agency worker's extension was explained by the difference between agency and employee status, administrative ease, and the claimant's earlier indication that he intended to move on, not age. For the fixed-term employee claim, the tribunal accepted the respondent's legitimate aims of retaining skills in the brokerage team and equipping permanent staff in the merged service, and found the relevant training and work-allocation decisions were a proportionate means of achieving those aims.