Mr I Ralph v Buckinghamshire College Group — 2022

Mr I Ralph worked for Amersham and Wycombe College from around 2006 and transferred to Buckinghamshire College Group under TUPE in October 2017. The tribunal accepted that he is Muslim and that Lisa Portland became his line manager around March 2017. It found that, after concerns about the Business and ICT department, the claimant was told he was taking over course leader responsibilities for a Business course; when an external assessor found the IV folder empty on 1 June 2017, the tribunal rejected the claimant’s suggestion of an IT failure and accepted the respondent’s case that he had been given time to complete the work and was issued with a formal warning after the 7 June 2017 meeting.

The tribunal also accepted the respondent’s evidence about lesson observations in September 2017. It found Kam Nandra’s feedback and Ms Portland’s criticisms of the claimant’s lessons were their genuine opinions and not the product of personal animosity. After the claimant’s grievance about Ms Portland was lodged, investigated by Janice Incerpi, and rejected by Ms Isobel Ellison on 29 March 2018, the claimant returned on a phased plan in April 2018 with mediation and support from Bruce Hope. The tribunal found that he knew he was in an informal performance review process, that the respondent continued that process during his phased return, and that the claimant’s concerns were not ignored.

For the indirect discrimination claim, the complaint was that the formal capability meeting on 19 June 2018 should not have been fixed during the period of fasting the claimant observed immediately after Ramadan. The tribunal held that this was a one-off decision rather than a PCP within section 19 Equality Act 2010; alternatively, it held that the respondent had shown a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aim of maintaining capability standards and progressing the process, noting that breaks were available, the claimant was accompanied, and the meeting was a normal working day.

On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal applied section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 and the constructive dismissal authorities in Western Excavating, Malik, Omilaju and Kaur. It found that none of the 23 alleged matters, whether individually or cumulatively, amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract or a breach of trust and confidence, so the claimant was not constructively dismissed when he resigned on 3 August 2018. Because there was no dismissal, the unfair dismissal claim failed, and no award was made.