Mr B Ikejiaku v British Institute of Technology Ltd England (BITE) — 2018

The tribunal found that the claimant remained an employee throughout, including after the March 2016 consultancy agreement, despite the Respondent's attempt to characterise the relationship as consultancy. It accepted that the parties had earlier agreed a higher salary figure would appear on the sponsorship paperwork while lower cash payments were made, and it held that the 9 March 2016 settlement resolved the earlier underpayment dispute so that pre-March 2016 salary claims were not outstanding on termination. The tribunal also observed that the March 2016 agreement did not satisfy s.1 ERA 1996, with any resulting award to be dealt with at remedy.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal held that the claimant's October 2015 disclosure to Mr Farmer about HMRC, tax and national insurance was protected, and that the introduction of the March 2016 consultancy agreement was a detriment caused by that disclosure. It also held that the 12 July 2017 email about being asked to pass scripts despite suspected copying was a protected disclosure. The Respondent's SOSR and redundancy explanation for the next-day dismissal was rejected; the tribunal found the protected disclosure was the sole reason for dismissal and that the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996. Other alleged detriments were rejected because causation was not shown, or because the point was not properly before the tribunal at that stage.

On race and victimisation, the tribunal found that the claimant had been removed as course leader and replaced by Mr Vohra, but it was not satisfied that the alleged comment about Asians was made or that the later module, marking and register issues were race-related. The course leader complaint was out of time and time was not extended, so the race discrimination claim was dismissed. The victimisation claim also failed because the alleged protected act was not made out. On money claims, the tribunal upheld the holiday pay and unlawful deduction claims in part, finding a £750 reduction in November 2016 for holiday and a further deduction on termination for accrued holiday pay, and it held that the claimant was entitled to a further two weeks' notice pay. The remaining quantification was left to a later remedy hearing.