The Scottish Trades Union Congress v Mr Zaffir Hakim
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lady Wise |
| Neutral Citation | UKEATS/0008/17/JW |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal,Victimisation Discrimination,Victimisation Discrimination - Dismissal,Not landmark |
| Date | 08 December 2017 |
| Published date | 10 August 2018 |
Copyright 2010
Appeal No: EATS/0008/17/JW
At the Tribunal
On 8 December 2017
At 10:30am
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
52 MELVILLE STREET, EDINBURGH, EH3 7HF
Before
THE HONOURABLE LADY WISE
(SITTING ALONE)
THE SCOTTISH TRADES UNION CONGRESS APPELLANT
MR ZAFFIR HAKIM RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
EATS/0008/17/JW
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
Mr Richard Stubbs, Counsel
Thompsons, Solicitors
Berkeley House
285 Bath Street
GLASGOW
G2 4HQ
For the Respondent
Julius Komorowski, Advocate
Instructed by
EHCR Scotland
Legal
151 West George Street
GLASGOW
G2 2JJ
-1-
SUMMARY
DISMISSAL : VICTIMISATION : EQUALITY ACT 2010, section 27
Claims of unfair dismissal, and victimisation brought by the claimant against the
respondent employer succeeded after a hearing before the Tribunal but a related claim of
race discrimination was dismissed. The claimant had been dismissed against a
background of his having earlier raised a claim in the Employment Tribunal against the
respondent. In upholding his section 27 claim the Employment Tribunal held that he had
been dismissed because of that protected act. The respondent appealed only the decision
on victimisation. Four grounds were advanced. On these;-
1) The Tribunal had understood that dismissal w as the primary detriment
complained of but was entitled to consider the whole period of what the claimant
had described as “ continuing vic timisation “ and so the complaint of the plural “
detriments” did not arise from any impermissible de cision on a claim of which the
respondent had no proper notice.
2) The tribunal had correctly identified and applied the “ because of” test in section
27 to the facts of the case and had addressed adequately the relationship between
the protected act and the detriment of dismissal
3) The Tribunal’s different conclusions on the race discrimination and victimisation
claims were not inconsistent and so perverse ; the claimant had established
sufficient primary facts form which an inference could be drawn on the latter but
not the former, and
4) There was ample basis in the evidence f or Tribunal’s conclusions on the souring of
the relationship between the claimants and his manager, including for the finding
that the said manager was “frustrated” by the impact of what the claimant had
done. Adequate reasons had been given.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial