Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Saini –v- All Saints Haque Centre (1) Bungay (2) & Paul (3)
Employment Appeal Tribunal – 24 October 2008

Issues

(1) Regulation 5(1) of the Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) Regulations 2003 (“the Regulations”)
(2) Discrimination by association
(3) Harassment

Facts

Mr Saini worked at an immigration advice centre in Wolverhampton as a senior advice worker. He was of the Hindu faith as was his manager, Mr Chandel. The second and third respondents, Mr Bungay and Mr Paul, were Ravidassis.

Mr Bungay and Mr Paul were made redundant but remained on the Board. The composition of the Board changed over time, to the point when it was controlled by Ravidassis. They blamed Mr Chandel for their redundancies as they had thought he had been looking after fellow Hindu employees rather than those who were Ravidassis.

Mr Bungay and Mr Paul commenced disciplinary proceedings against Mr Chandel. They told Mr Saini that they were only interested in ousting Mr Chandel. He alleged that he was harassed by Mr Bungay and Mr Paul and placed under pressure to provide them with grounds with which to justify their decision to dismiss Mr Chandel. Mr Chandel was dismissed and Mr Saini resigned. Mr Saini claimed constructive unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal and discriminatory harassment in breach of Regulation 5(1) of the Regulations.

At the Employment Tribunal his dismissal claim was successful. However, he was unsuccessful with his harassment claim. Whilst the Tribunal found that the conduct did satisfy the definition of harassment, it went on to find that there was no evidence to suggest that the Respondents’ conduct had been adversely motivated by the fact that Mr Saini was a Hindu. It found that a non-Hindu in a similar position would have been similarly treated. He was treated in that manner, not because of his religious belief, but because he could provide evidence against Mr Chandel.

Mr Saini appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). He argued that the Tribunal had only considered whether the Respondents’ conduct was on the grounds of his own religion or relief. He pointed out that it had not examined whether the conduct he was subjected to was because of Mr Chandel’s relief or belief. He argued that he was being harassed by association, referring to the case of Coleman –v- Attridge Law. In this case, the Claimant had been successful bringing a claim of unlawful harassment where she had been harassed on the grounds of her son’s disability.

Decision

Mr Saini’s appeal was successful. It felt that the Regulations will be breached, not only where he is harassed on the basis of his own beliefs but also where he is harassed because of another individual’s beliefs. The EAT felt this interpretation was consistent with the original European directive and the Advocate General’s opinion in Coleman –v- Attridge Law.

Comments

This case now follows a line of judgments which develop the law of discrimination and increase the number of employees who may be protected by it. It is very likely that subsequent cases in other areas of discrimination will be interpreted in a similar manner.

Rachel Billen – Associate Solicitor, Employment Department at Veitch Penny.
Tel: 01392 278381, Fax: 01392 410247, Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

This Employment Law Update does not constitute legal or other professional advice and should not be relied on as such. You should take specific advice regarding your circumstances before taking any action based on the information contained within this Update.