Mr R Headley v London Borough of Newham and others: 3203107/2019
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 March 2022 |
| Date | 02 March 2022 |
| Citation | 3203107/2019 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Published date | 16 March 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Breach of Contract |
Case Number: 3203107/2019 V
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mr Robert Headley
Respondents: (1) London Borough of Newham
(2) Rokeby School
(3) Newham Community Services Trust
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre (by Cloud Video Platform)
Before: Employment Judge John Crosfill
Members: Ms S Harwood
Mrs B K Saund
On: 27, 28, 29 & 30 April and 8 June (In chambers) 2021
Representation
Claimant: In person
Respondent: Sinaed King of Counsel instructed by One Source
JUDGMENT
1. The Claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal brought under Part X of
the Employment Rights Act 1996 whether relying on Section 98 or
Section 103A of that act is not well founded and is dismissed.
2. The Claimant’s claim of direct discrimination relying on the
protected characteristic of religion or belief brought under sections
13, 39 and 120 of the Equality Act 2010 is dismissed.
3. The Claimant’s claim for notice pay brought under the Employment
Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
is dismissed.
Case Number: 3203107/2019 V
2
REASONS
1. The Claimant is a teacher who at the times we are concerned with taught
secondary school pupils subjects which fell within the broad scope of
Design and Technology. He commenced work at Rokeby School in
September 2008. The Claimant is a Christian who, in addition to
orthodox Christian beliefs, believes that the ‘chosen people’ were from
Africa and, as a consequence of the slave trade now are found in the
African Diaspora.
2. In 2019 the Claimant disagreed with his line managers about their
approach to the grades he had given his students. He raised a complaint
about that and other matters of examination practice initially internally
and subsequently externally. At much the same time members of the
schools staff viewed videos that the Claimant had posted on YouTube
in which he talked about religion. A complaint was made that the content
of those videos was discriminatory and contrary to the school’s values.
A disciplinary process followed during which the Claimant was
summarily dismissed for gross misconduct.
3. The Claimant instigated the early conciliation process with ACAS in
respect of all three Respondents and on 23 December 2019 he
presented his ET1 in which he has made claims that his dismissal was
automatically unfair as his complaints about the examination practices
amounted to protected disclosures for the purposes of sections 43A and
103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 or, alternatively, that his
dismissal was unfair on ordinary principles. The Claimant is also brought
a claim that his dismissal was an act of unlawful direct discrimination
because of his religious beliefs. Finally, the Claimant claims notice pay
and says that his summary dismissal was an unlawful breach of
contract.
Relevant procedural history and the hearing
4. On 4 May 2020 there was a closed preliminary hearing that took place
before Employment Judge Lewis. For reasons which are immaterial the
Claimant was unable to attend. The Respondents had prepared a draft
list of issues but thought that some further information was necessary in
order that that list could be finalised. Employment Judge Lewis ordered
the Claimant to give further information about his case. In particular she
directed that he should:
4.1. clarify the basis upon which he says he made protected
disclosures
4.2. identify the religion and/or particular belief or set of beliefs that he
relied upon; and
4.3. identify whether he was bringing claims of direct or indirect
discrimination and, if so, how he put his case.
Case Number: 3203107/2019 V
3
5. On 15 June 2020 the Claimant provided the further better particulars
ordered by Employment Judge Lewis together with a document setting
out his account of his religious beliefs. That document is attached to this
judgment as Schedule 2.
6. The parties then sent to the Tribunal a list of issues on 6 July 2020 which
was understood to have been agreed.
7. The final hearing had been listed as an in-person hearing but, due to the
Covid 19 pandemic, was converted into a CVP hearing. The Claimant
corresponded with the Tribunal in advance of the hearing stating that he
would have real difficulties conducting the hearing via CVP from his own
home. The Tribunal offered the Claimant the possibility of attending at
its premises. The Claimant agreed to this. During the hearing the
Claimant attended in one of the hearing rooms in which he was provided
with a large screen. He was able to attend with his family and/or
supporters who were able to observe the proceedings. The Claimant
had his own set of documents in addition to the agreed trial bundle which
he was less familiar with. The Claimant was able to use all of the
available desk space to spread out his documents in order that he could
find any document he was looking for.
8. At the outset of the hearing we first dealt with the fact that one of the
allocated members had a close connection with the human resources
organisation that had provided advice to the Respondents. We informed
the parties of this and both parties indicated they were uncomfortable
with this close connection (as was the member himself). Rather than
examine whether the test for recusal was met we agreed to find out
whether another member was available. That prove to be a possibility
and the panel that heard the case is that named above.
9. We then turned to a discussion of the issues. The Respondent was
concerned by recent correspondence from the Claimant that he was
seeking to introduce claims that went beyond the agreed list of issues
found within the bundle. It was suggested that in addition to claims of
direct discrimination the Claimant was now seeking to introduce claims
of indirect discrimination and harassment. When the Employment Judge
explored that with the Claimant he indicated that he was not seeking to
introduce any such additional claims under the Equality Act 2010. His
sole claim under the equality act was that he was dismissed for his
religious beliefs. He did however go on to say that he did not accept that
the list of issues fully encapsulated his protected disclosures. After
hearing representations the parties we decided that the Claimant should
be permitted to argue that he reasonably believed that his references to
regrading made in his email of 22 May 2019 (his first protected
disclosure) tended to show that the Respondent was in breach of a legal
obligation namely the examination standards imposed by the
qualification body.
10. The list of issues that had been agreed between the parties is set out as
To continue reading
Request your trial