A serving PSNI officer’s application for judicial review has been refused. Mr Justice Colton ruled that a disciplinary panel had the right to examine allegations of previous employment misconduct that the Applicant failed to disclose as part of a questionnaire completed when joining the PSNI. The Applicant claimed that as the conduct preceded him becoming a police officer, the Misconduct panel did not have jurisdiction over the matter.

The misconduct in question related to disciplinary proceedings in two separate retail roles that involved gross misconduct and the making of unauthorised payments to himself. 

Despite not being an officer at the time of the misconduct the court held that the contents of the questionnaire were “unambiguous as to the importance of full and accurate disclosure, and the potential implication of any such failure” to disclose.

Furthermore, “the declaration [was] self evidently an integral and fundamental element of the process by which the applicant was ultimately appointed to the public office of police officer.”

The court also acknowledged the Applicant’s ongoing duty under the terms of the questionnaire and the statutory regulations to correct any inaccuracies.

The court acknowledged that whilst the Applicant’s Article 8 rights were engaged, given that he risked losing his income, and a well-respected career, any interference was in accordance with the law, pursued a legitimate aim, and was proportionate. 

The court did not adjudicate on the substance of the complaint which will be returned to disciplinary proceedings for statutory adjudication by a  misconduct panel.

The Tribunal held: That the Claimant’s allegiance was “support” for the Club and not a “belief.” It was not a substantial aspect of human life and behaviour and was therefore distinct from the philosophical belief of ethical veganism established in Casamithana Costs v League Against Cruel Sports ET/3331129/2018. It also found that unionism, monarchism, involvement in the Orange Order and Protestantism, although common amongst supporters, were not a component or requisite part of being a Rangers fan, and were separate matters to the Claimant’s claim.

At para [65] the Tribunal held “The claimant is a supporter of Rangers in the same way as people may be
supporters or active members of a political party.” 

Para 68] “I acknowledged the claimant’s evidence regarding buying a ticket for a game, enjoying the pre-match build-up, waking up “buzzing” on match days, and engaging in the singing of songs at matches, but those are all matters personal to the claimant: They are subjectively important. They are things from which the claimant, and no doubt millions of other sports fans, derive enjoyment, but they do not represent a belief as to a weighty or substantial aspect of human life and have no larger consequences for humanity as a whole.”

G RAJA V STARLING BANK IT 2203318/2020
Click here for judgment and here for news story
 

The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, Starling Bank, as deputy company secretary from 2019.  She claimed that she was subject to unfavourable treatment “because of something” arising from a disability in respect of the investigation of her claim of discrimination and her ultimate dismissal. The Claimant also presented claims regarding detriment for not holding a meeting with her to discuss health and safety concerns relating to the COVID pandemic, and victimisation.

The Claimant was already asthmatic when she developed a persistent cough which she suspected was caused by the office air conditioning. She raised this issue on several occasions. but no adjustment was made. Her GP instructed her to work from home as a result of an ongoing chest infection. The Claimant stated she was largely ignored by the Respondent whenever she communicated with them regarding her health issues. When working in the office the Claimant explained that she had to leave early due to the effect the air condition was having on her. The respondent denied that she left for health reasons and stated it was not aware of any health issue. Shortly after requesting a meeting to address her health condition in relation to the government-led Covid 19 measures she was invited to a meeting and informed she would be dismissed for reasons of unsatisfactory performance. The Claimant was not aware that her performance was considered to be an issue, had no informal or written warnings of the same, or that the meeting that she attended was about her performance rather than her health condition. The Claimant was informed that she was “not a Starling person” and that she had not really been “putting in the effort” of others.

She subsequently lodged a grievance that was not addressed and offered no right of appeal. 

The Tribunal found that the Respondent’s failure to acknowledge her health issue and lack of sympathy showed an intention to discourage time off for ill health and working from home. An expectation that she would work beyond contracted hours aligned with an attitude of impatience with ill health absence. 

Last month the story of Jason Grant’s appointment as the Period Dignity Officer in Scotland provoked debate that the role should have been given to a woman. Following a wave of on-line threats and abuse  Mr Grant was dismissed and the role was then “scrapped”. The BBC has now reported that Mr Grant is actively pursuing a claim under the Equality Act. For the full story click HERE.

Dismissal for gross misconduct of a store assistant Claimant was found to be within the band of reasonable responses open to the Respondent when the Claimant failed, on several occasions,to provide information regarding his arrest and subsequent charge for a lewd act whilst not at work.  

The Respondent was concerned with the impact on its reputation when the case was publicised and asked the Claimant to explain the situation. The Claimant had been advised by his solicitor not to discuss the matter and refused to do so.  His claim was dismissed by the WRC.

For the full story click here and for the judgment click here

Picture Credit: RTE

The claimant alleged that he was singled out and subject to bullying treatment by his manager following his refusal to manipulate the supermarket’s Clubcard system by putting points onto a blank card for the manager.

For the news story click here and for the judgment click here

Presentation covering the basic principles and concepts contained within the Data Protection Act 2018 and the implementation of GDPR in the United Kingdom.  Considers the principles applying to dealing with data subject access requests and managing data breaches. Also contains information relating to employee monitoring and relevant data protection issues and examines data sharing in corporate transactions.