Member Muir Tribunal Member O’Hagan Mr Lucky Isah v Represented by:15 Ms L Neil - Solicitor Police Scotland — 2021

The claimant, a black police officer born in Nigeria, brought consolidated race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims arising from recruitment in 2014-2015, probationary management in Greenock and Paisley, and his dismissal in 2019. The tribunal first dealt with limitation under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and held that the recruitment and Greenock discrimination complaints were out of time. It rejected the argument that the earlier matters formed part of a continuing act ending with dismissal.

On recruitment, the tribunal accepted that the respondent's vetting process applied to all candidates and turned on whether relevant police dealings had been disclosed. It found that the claimant had not disclosed a domestic police attendance, that the initial refusal of vetting was based on that omission and integrity concerns, and that the appeal was later allowed when his explanation was accepted. It also found that the need to retake the fitness test arose because the earlier test had gone out of date by the time the appointment process was completed. Those complaints were dismissed both as time-barred and, in any event, because race was not the reason for the treatment.

At Greenock, the tribunal found that the action plan and related concerns arose from performance and welfare issues, including tiredness during a suspect interview and concerns about statement writing and crime reports. Chief Inspector Gallagher's grievance investigation found no overt racism and Superintendent Kennedy accepted that conclusion; the action plan was withdrawn and the claimant moved to Paisley with his agreement. The tribunal held those matters were discrete and out of time, and that the evidence did not show they were because of race.

In Paisley, the tribunal accepted Sergeant Singh's evidence that he kept a log as a management tool, raised concerns about the claimant's performance, paired him with more experienced officers, and arranged secondments to help him improve. It found no evidence that the log, the e-brief suggestion, the pairing arrangements or the feedback were related to the claimant's race or Nigerian accent. The harassment complaint was allowed to proceed on a just-and-equitable extension, but it still failed because the conduct was not unwanted conduct related to race and did not satisfy section 26.

The dismissal claim failed on the facts found. The tribunal held that on 13 February 2018 the claimant failed to attend for duty as rostered, did not follow an instruction to attend the office before court, and did not have his notebook with him at court; he later admitted the conduct in the misconduct process. It found the disciplinary process and dismissal were based on those acts, not on the earlier grievance or on the claimant's tribunal claim. The victimisation claims therefore also failed, and no remedy was considered because every claim was dismissed.