(1) Ms P. Mntonintshi (2) Ms U. Jama v Barking Havering & Redbridge University Hospital NHS Trust and 1 other — 2023

The tribunal heard consolidated claims by Ms P. Mntonintshi and Ms U. Jama arising from events in the biochemistry department at Queen’s Hospital. It found that Ms Valera-Larios, who became Lead BMS in November 2019, lacked the management experience needed for the role, that senior management above her did not intervene effectively, and that Ms Valera-Larios, Ms Beck and Ms Zadorozny operated closely together. The tribunal also found that power in the department sat largely with white managers and de facto deputies, and that divisions in the department were at least in part along racial lines.

For Ms Mntonintshi, the tribunal upheld race discrimination in relation to the probation statement, the decision to extend her probation with a threat of termination, and the July 2020 meeting in which she was told she would be a problem for two years and was criticised for lodging a grievance. It also upheld harassment related to race in relation to the 13 February sample-throwing incident, the subsequent late-shift challenge and the Roche representative incident. Victimisation was upheld because the tribunal found Ms Valera-Larios believed Ms Mntonintshi was supporting Ms Jama’s race complaint and retaliated against her; other Mntonintshi claims were dismissed or treated as not well-founded, and the failure formally to confirm probation completion was treated as an HR oversight.

For Ms Jama, the tribunal upheld direct race discrimination in relation to a series of decisions and actions including the Roche CITM training opportunity, the 28 February Roche demonstration, the work-from-home demand while she was sick with suspected Covid symptoms, the proposed transfer to King George Hospital, the decision to send staff home early without consulting her, the tasks table, workload and senior-day rota issues, the unanswered emails about QC trends, the troponin reagent issue and the 2 July ALT email. It upheld harassment related to race in relation to the two sample-handling incidents and the later 'paininarse' incident, and it upheld victimisation and whistleblowing detriment where the tribunal found that Ms Jama was treated adversely after making race complaints and protected disclosures about health and safety.

The tribunal rejected a number of allegations where it found the underlying events were not proved, or where it accepted an innocent explanation. Examples included the alleged monitoring of breaks, the alleged checking of work on later dates, the annual leave refusal on Eid, and the later engineer-cancellation complaint as a whistleblowing claim because the tribunal did not accept that the incident report itself was a protected disclosure. It nevertheless found a continuing state of affairs under Hendricks, so that earlier matters were within time, and it extended time for Ms Mntonintshi’s early harassment claim on just and equitable grounds.

The tribunal also upheld victimisation against Ms Beck over the 'paininarse' incident, finding that her insertion of the tag was innocent but her failure to remove it from Ms Jama’s documents was deliberate, and that Ms Valera-Larios’s failure to require removal of the tag amounted to harassment and whistleblowing detriment. Mr Cockfield’s later brief report on the same issue was criticised and victimisation was upheld against him in relation to the follow-on handling of Ms Jama’s complaint. No compensation was fixed in this judgment; the tribunal directed that there would be a separate remedy hearing, and both claimants remained in employment.