Tribunal Shenanigans...

'Sad though it is to have to say this, it seems to us to be likely that Mr Habib is, unfortunately, ill-equipped to cope with the nuances of social interaction in the workplace, and lacks the sort of social skills that might have eased tensions that arose around the mug incident.' 

Were there other clues? 

Mr Habib also tried to claim that his manager denying him five weeks annual leave to go back to Pakistan for a series of weddings, which he requested just a month into his employment, was race discrimination.

Aha! 

As well as the race discrimination claims, Mr Habib alleged that during his time at Currys he had been sexually harassed by a female co-worker. However, his allegations were dismissed as 'simply incredible'.

Tribunals are usually so gullible, he must have had a face only a mother could love. 

At the end of March, Mr Habib was dismissed by Currys and was not given an opportunity to appeal. His unfair dismissal claim was struck out because Mr Habib had not been employed long enough to make that claim. However, he was awarded three weeks' notice pay because there was no mention of a probation period in his notice and therefore he was entitled to one month's notice not one week.

The comedic value of a Pakitsni or Indian being in a dispute with Cuttys. of all stores, was not missed. 

Employment Tribunals Again...

A counter-terror police officer who was sacked after he forgot his headphones was unfairly dismissed, an employment tribunal has ruled. Colin Bastin had been given a private room by a librarian to dial in to a call which he had been unable to take from home because of 'noisy' building works. He claimed there were no police stations 'within easy access of his home' where he could go for the meeting, the tribunal heard.

What about the police station he was assigned to? In other words, his office...? 

The National Counter Terrorism Security Office worker reportedly made a number of other mistakes during his probationary period, including accidentally booking a 'top secret' security level room for a team meeting which would have excluded one of the delegates.

Maybe the cops should look into getting a professional in?  

In April 2024, Mr Bastin was told he was facing dismissal and was invited to a meeting.

I wonder if he attended in person, or asked to do that from the library? 

He gathered evidence to show his performance had improved, but was told managers would only be considering his performance up to the end of the extended probationary period, which ended in early 2023. After taking his employer to an employment tribunal, a judge ruled his original dismissal was unfair because it was based on 'out-of-date information'.

Well, it would be. What's this judge's issue with that? 

'Mr Bastin's performance, which was the reason for dismissal, had been assessed over a fixed period that had ended over a year before the decision was taken,' the judge said. 'It was unfair not to allow him to bring evidence of his recent improvement. 'In conclusion, I find that the dismissal was unfair and outside the band of reasonable responses.'

The probationary period is just that - you're on probation. You'd think a judge of all people would understand the term... 

The Continuing Cost Of MacPherson...

A cash-strapped fire brigade forked out more than £40,000 in legal fees after being sued by a firefighter who was sacked for buying weapons online.

Yes, this is yet another casualty of the war on common sense. 

Tyrone Bahar alleged the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority was 'institutionally racist' for firing him in light of his criminal offences, which saw him jailed for five years. An employment tribunal heard the firefighter, who was behind bars when he brought forward claims, felt the sanction to dismiss him was 'too severe'.

He sued for unfair dismissal and race and disability discrimination, but his claims were thrown out after an employment judge found the authority was right to sack him, stating it was a perfectly 'reasonable response' to his crimes.

Thank god for a judge with sense, but even so, the taxpayer is still on the hook for the cost. 

Now, a freedom of information request has revealed the fire brigade had to fork out £41,683 in legal fees to defend these claims.

In August 2020, the first investigatory meeting was held and Mr Bahar told bosses whilst he accepted that he pleaded guilty to possessing firearms, he asserted that he had thought they were legal and would not have bought them if he had realised they were illegal. The panel heard evidence from a psychological report, which stated the firefighter had a 'disorder of collecting items' and this hoarding 'could explain the behaviour exhibited by collecting several weapons'.

Good grief! And when the mental health tack failed, pull out the RaceCard!  

Whilst his prison sentence was live, Mr Bahar brought forward a claim of unfair dismissal. In a 251 page witness statement read by the panel, the firefighter alleged there was an 'unhelpful atmosphere' at the Royal Berkshire Fire Authority which was 'based on race'.

These claims were not upheld by EJ Thomas Talbot-Ponsonby who said: '[Mr Bahar's] case is that he perceives that there is institutional racism, and that he has suffered ongoing discrimination and harassment due to his race, which he feels is either tolerated or even condoned by management.

'The tribunal consider that, having regard to the pleaded case... [Mr Bahar] has not provided evidence to support this allegation.'

Perhaps where there's palpably no evidence, legal aid to sue should be automatically refused?