Member Lawson Tribunal Member Watt Mr A Shah v Represented by: Mrs D Reynolds Solicitor Dunfermline Mosque & Islamic Centre and 5 others — 2021

The tribunal heard claims by Mr and Mrs Shah against the unincorporated Dunfermline Mosque & Islamic Centre and the individual committee members. It held that the employment relationship was with the unincorporated body acting through its executive committee, not DIC Ltd. The first claimant pursued unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination, and harassment related to religion; the second claimant pursued race and disability discrimination. Paragraph 34 records that the first claimant was no longer pursuing holiday pay and the second claimant was no longer pursuing arrears of wages.

On unfair dismissal, the tribunal rejected the respondents' stated immigration and SOSR explanation as the operative reason. It found the real reason was the committee's response to the first claimant's disclosure of personal information on 8 May 2018. The dismissal was nevertheless unfair under s.98(4) ERA 1996 because there was no proper investigation, the proposed disciplinary hearing was chaired by a witness to the incident, no fair hearing or appeal took place, and the respondents surrendered the sponsor licence to bring about dismissal. The tribunal found contributory conduct because the first claimant should have kept the marital information confidential, reduced the basic award by 50%, and reduced the compensatory award by 50% before applying the statutory cap; no Polkey reduction was made.

On disability, the tribunal accepted that the first claimant developed work-related stress, anxiety and depression from 14 May 2018, but held the impairment was not long-term at the relevant times and so did not meet s.6 EqA. The disability discrimination claims by both claimants therefore failed. On race, the tribunal accepted the first claimant's non-British nationality and Pakistani national origin as race characteristics, but held that the Ahle-Sunna-Wal Jama’t Hanafi Barelvi denomination was religious rather than ethnic. It concluded that the alleged treatment was not because of race.

The race discrimination claims failed across the pleaded incidents because the tribunal either did not accept that the conduct happened, held the respondents could not be liable for acts of third parties, or found the actions were driven by non-racial reasons such as the dispute about the Beach Mawlid, English-language sermons, the disciplinary process after 8 May 2018, or the attempt to justify the dismissal. The second claimant's race claim likewise failed: the Facebook and text allegations were third-party conduct, the child-class complaint was linked to family sensitivities, and her dismissal followed the end of the first claimant's employment and his sponsorship position rather than race.

The harassment claim under s.26 EqA succeeded in part. The tribunal found that repeated calls that the first claimant was a Shi'a Muslim by Saghir Ahmed, a committee member, amounted to harassment related to religion, and that the 22 May 2018 disciplinary invite repeating allegations that he was preaching extremist Muslim views also amounted to harassment related to religion. The remaining alleged incidents were rejected because they were not proved, were not unwanted conduct, or were unrelated to religion. Although the harassment allegations were out of time, the tribunal extended time on a just and equitable basis.