Mr S Juneja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council: 1804376/2021
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Judgment Date | 18 January 2023 |
| Citation | 1804376/2021 |
| Published date | 26 January 2023 |
| Date | 18 January 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Unfair Dismissal |
Case Number: 1804376/2021
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant Respondent
Mr S Juneja v
City of Bradford Metropolitan District
Council
Heard at: Sheffield (by CVP) On: 29, 30 November; 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 20 & 21
December 2022
Before: Employment Judge James
Mr K Smith
Mr G Harker
Representation
For the Claimant: Ms E Banton, counsel
For the Respondent: Mrs J Callan, counsel
JUDGMENT
(1) The claims of direct race discrimination (s.13 Equality Act 2010) are not
upheld and are dismissed.
(2) The claims of harassment related to race (s.26 Equality Act 2010) are not
upheld and are dismissed.
(3) The claims of victimisation (s.27 Equality Act 2010) are not upheld and are
dismissed.
(4) The claim of discriminatory constructive unfair dismissal (s.13 Equality Act
2010) is not upheld and is dismissed.
(5) The claims of detriment for making a protected disclosure (s.48
Employment Rights Act 1996) are not upheld and are dismissed.
(6) The claim of automatically unfair constructive dismissal for making a
protected disclosure (s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996) is not upheld
and is dismissed.
Case Number: 1804376/2021
2
REASONS
The issues
1. The agreed issues which the Tribunal had to determine are set out in Annex
A.
The proceedings
2. Acas Early Conciliation was commenced on 27 May and was concluded on 15
June 2021. The claim form was issued on 27 August 2021. The claim form
was initially rejected because it named the wrong respondent; Anne Lloyd,
Director of Human Resources, was named in box 2.1. Following a request for
reconsideration, the claim form was treated as having been received on 9
September 2021, 13 days later, against the current respondent.
3. A preliminary hearing for case management purposes took place on 15
November 2021 before Employment Judge Davies. The claimant was ordered
to provide further and better particulars; a date was set for a final hearing; and
related case management orders were made. The date for the hearing
subsequently had to be postponed and rearranged.
The hearing
4. The hearing took place over nine days. Evidence and submissions on liability
were dealt with on the first seven days. The Tribunal then met in private to
arrive at its decision on the final two days which the Tribunal had arranged for
that purpose. Judgment was reserved.
5. The Tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and Waheeda Shah,
Attendance Team Manager; and for the respondent, from Sarah Griffin,
Service Manager of the Youth Offending Team (YOT); Danielle Wilson, former
Education Safeguarding Strategic Manager; Anne Lloyd, Director of Human
Resources; and Kate Hopton, who at the time of the events we are concerned
with, was employed as Education Safeguarding Lead Officer. There was an
agreed hearing bundle of 999 pages, and an agreed Chronology and Cast List.
Further Documents
6. A number of documents were added to the bundle by agreement during the
hearing. Witnesses and counsel were given time to consider those extra
documents, as required.
7. On 7 December 2022, an application was made by the respondent to admit an
extract from a spreadsheet relating to the allegation that on 9 March 2021, the
claimant was questioned about an old piece of advice. At the time the
document was first mentioned, Ms Hopton was halfway through her evidence,
and she was the final witness for the respondent. Ms Banton opposed the
admission of that document.
8. Just before the lunch break, the Tribunal briefly adjourned to consider the
matter. The Tribunal concluded that it would not be appropriate to admit the
document at this late stage. If the document were to be admitted, Ms Banton
would require the meta data in relation to it to be disclosed. It may have been
necessary to recall witnesses. We have the witness evidence from Mrs Hopton
in relation to this issue together with the witness evidence from the claimant,
Case Number: 1804376/2021
3
together with any submissions which both counsel made in relation to this
evidence. We were at a late stage in the proceedings; we were expecting
written submissions by 2.00 pm, and oral submissions at 3.00 pm. The listed
hearing was due to conclude that day. The Tribunal had a lot to cover in
relation to the relevant fact-findings, and subsequent conclusions during the
two days that had been set aside for deliberations. Both days were likely to be
required. It was far preferable to conclude evidence and submissions on 7
December. In those circumstances the Tribunal did not consider it
proportionate or necessary to admit that document. It had been forwarded to
the Tribunal panel members by the clerk, but all the members of the panel
deleted that email without considering the document and it has not influenced
our findings of fact below in any way.
Findings of fact
9. The claimant is a British Asian, of Indian heritage.
The claimant’s role
10. The claimant started work for the respondent, Bradford Metropolitan District
Council, on 1 September 2019 in the role of Education Safeguarding Officer
(ESO), in the Education Safeguarding Department (ESD). He was initially
employed on a fixed term contract, which was due to end on 26 February 2021.
11. The Education Safeguarding Department works with schools in the District to
ensure that children are safeguarded and in education. This involves ensuring
schools that were part of the Local Authority had the proper safeguarding setup
and training; working with school attendance teams to ensure children were
attending; providing safeguarding training and investigating safeguarding
concerns on behalf of Ofsted and making recommendations; carrying out
safeguarding reviews and giving advice about pupil risk assessments.
12. The ESD also works with the Special Education Needs (SEN) team.
Sometimes, SEN students do not get their preferred schools and parents want
to keep them at home. A sizeable number of the safeguarding concerns raised
are about SEN students. In addition, the Department works with the Pupil
referral units and the exclusions officer where children are excluded from
schools and a safeguarding complaint/issue is raised. ESOs also work with the
school admission team to address issues of school admissions for children for
whom home education is not suitable; and the Youth Offending Team YOT
(later the Youth Justice Team (YJT)) as pupils need to be placed into education
after release from a Young Offender Institution.
Line management
13. Throughout the claimant’s employment, the claimant’s line manager was Kate
Hopton (Ms Hopton), who became the Education Safeguarding Lead Officer
in March 2019. The claimant was part of a team of about five or six ESOs.
14. Ms Hopton had been line managed in her previous role by Danielle Wilson
from about July 2018. In her role as Education Safeguarding Lead Officer, Ms
Hopton was also line managed by Danielle Wilson (Ms Wilson), Strategic
Manager for the Education Safeguarding Team. In her new role, Ms Wilson
had strategic responsibility for Elective Home Education, Access to Education,
Children Missing Education, Attendance, Prosecution, Child Employment and
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
