Mr N Rajoo, Lay Representative For the First v Respondent — 2023

The claimant was employed at Beechwood Primary School in administrative roles and was dismissed on 27 March 2020 following a restructuring of the administration team. The tribunal found that the parental complaint made on 22 November 2018 was genuine, that Ms Cowen was entitled to handle it under the School’s complaints procedure, and that her comment to the claimant concerned tone and professionalism rather than accent or race. The tribunal rejected the suggestion that the complaint itself had been fabricated or that the handling of it was racially motivated.

The tribunal found that the School, acting through the Interim Executive Board, genuinely restructured the administration team because Reception coverage was inadequate and the School wanted more consistent all-day cover. Consultation took place, the selection criteria were not challenged, and all three at-risk employees were asked the same questions and set the same tasks. The claimant scored 31 against the other candidates’ scores of 41 and 44 and was selected for redundancy. The tribunal held that the dismissal was for a potentially fair reason, redundancy, and that the procedure was fair; alternatively, if not redundancy, it would have been fair for some other substantial reason because the claimant did not secure a role in the new structure.

The claimant’s grievance and appeal complaints were also rejected. Although the tribunal accepted that some procedural matters could have been handled better, including the timing of the original termination letter and the handling of the complaint against Ms Cowen, it found no racial motive, no less favourable treatment, and no conduct related to race. The victimisation claim failed because the complaint against Ms Cowen was not, on its proper reading, a protected act under the Equality Act 2010. The claim was dismissed in full and no award was made.