Mr G Bellavia v The University of Birmingham: 1300540/2016
| Judgment Date | 12 April 2017 |
| Citation | 1300540/2016 |
| Published date | 07 August 2017 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number 1300540/2016
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondent
Mr G Bellavia The University of
Birmingham
JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL
HELD AT Birmingham ON 27 & 28 February 2017
1, 2, 6 – 9 & 13 – 17
March 2017
EMPLOYMENT JUDGE GASKELL MEMBERS: Mrs N Gill
Mr S Woodall
Representation
For the Claimant: In Person
For Respondent: Ms N Motraghi (Counsel)
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the tribunal is that:
1 The claimant’s claim to have been unfairly dismissed by reason of having
made protected disclosures is dismissed upon being withdrawn by the
claimant.
2 The claimant was fairly dismissed by the respondent by reason of
redundancy; his claim for unfair dismissal is not well-founded and is
dismissed.
3 The respondent did not, at any time material to this claim, act towards the
claimant in contravention of Section 39 of the Equality Act 2010. The
claimant’s complaint of direct disability discrimination, pursuant to Section
120 of that Act, is dismissed.
4 Pursuant to Rules 74 – 78 & 84 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of
Procedure 2013, the claimant is ordered to pay to the respondent the sum
of £20000 as a contribution towards the respondent’s costs.
Case Number 1300540/2016
2
REASONS
Introduction
1 The claimant in this case is Mr Gerlando (Gina) Bellavia; who was
employed by the respondent, the University of Birmingham, in various roles from
5 April 2004 until 30 November 2015 when he was dismissed. The post held by
the claimant at the time of his dismissal was Project Director for Smartculture; a
Grade 9, non-academic, post. The contemporaneous reason given for the
claimant’s dismissal was redundancy; the claimant does not accept that this was
the principal reason.
2 By a claim form presented on 30 March 2016, the claimant brought the
following claims: -
(a) Unfair dismissal; including automatic unfair dismissal by reason of having
made protected disclosures.
(b) Disability discrimination, including direct discrimination; indirect
discrimination; harassment; and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
3 When the claimant was ordered to provide further particulars of his claims,
he included claims for protected disclosure detriment and age discrimination; sex
discrimination; victimisation; and claims brought under the Part-time Workers
(Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000; and the Fixed-
term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002.
4 At a Closed Preliminary Hearing on 19 May 2016, Employment Judge
Camp directed that there should be an Open Preliminary Hearing (OPH) to
determine several preliminary issues namely: -
(a) Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend his claim to include
the claims which he purported to add by the further particulars.
(b) Whether, at the material time, the claimant was a disabled person as
defined in Section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010.
(c) Whether any part of the claims should be struck out as having no
reasonable prospect of success.
(d) Whether he claimant should be ordered to pay a deposit.
5 The OPH was conducted by Employment Judge Dimbylow on 13 &14
October 2016. Judge Dimbylow determined that the claimant was a disabled
person at all material times after 11 March 2014; he was not a disabled person
before that date. At or before the OPH the claimant withdrew some of his claims;
Judge Dimbylow refused permission to include some of the claims by way of
amendment; he struck out some of the claims as having no reasonable prospect
of success; and he ordered deposits to be paid in respect of some others. The
To continue reading
Request your trial