Mr S Saeed, Solicitor For the v Ms B Omotosho, Solicitor — 2021

Mr Abdul Sattar, the respondent’s Imam and later Lead Imam, was dismissed on 1 February 2019 after a series of investigation and disciplinary processes concerning Nikah certificates, Friday and other speaker engagements, the use of the Masjid’s letterhead and stamp in a personal legal matter, and access to his office by Sajid Mallal. The tribunal accepted that the respondent was operating under Charity Commission concerns about speaker vetting and that there had been a serious breakdown in relations between the management committee, the claimant, and sections of the congregation.

The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was conduct. It held that the respondent genuinely believed the claimant had failed to comply with reasonable management instructions, had not produced the requested Nikah documentation or speaker information, had used the respondent’s letterhead and stamp without authorisation, had not resolved the legal dispute with Mr Munawar as requested, and had refused to allow the office locks to be changed despite access concerns. It accepted that the claimant was repeatedly invited to investigation and disciplinary meetings, but he chose not to attend several of them.

At appeal, the respondent instructed an external consultant, Paul Quinn of Citation, who heard representations and reviewed the papers. He found that one allegation concerning the letterhead, stamp and the legal dispute should be allowed, but recommended that the dismissal stand overall. The tribunal held that any procedural defects were cured on appeal, that Mr Quinn was not influenced by irrelevant considerations, and that the final decision was not motivated by the claimant’s allegations about Tablighi Jamaat or by any personal animus.

Applying section 98 ERA 1996 and the Burchell line of authority, the tribunal concluded that the investigation, the respondent’s belief in misconduct, and the sanction of dismissal were within the range of reasonable responses. It noted the claimant’s length of service but held that, given the live final written warning, the repeated refusals to cooperate, and the respondent’s operational and regulatory concerns, the dismissal was fair. The unfair dismissal claim was therefore dismissed and the listed remedy hearing was vacated.