Mr Nabeel Rahman, a former employee of the Penarth Leisure Centre, has brought an Employment Tribunal claim along with two other employees after he alleged that he had been the victim of racial discrimination, racial harassment and victimisation. The other two employees, Mr Scott Roberts and Mr Andrew Mifsud, complained to the Employment Tribunal that they were victims of “associative racial discrimination”, according to the Penarth Times.
Mr Rahman is alleging that he was the victim of racial discrimination at the company and has claimed that he was forced to pose for a photograph with a colleague pointing an “airsoft gun” at his head. He did not, however, raise a grievance about this at the time – a fact which Mr Rahman states was because he didn’t believe it would be productive. He claims that he was the victim of racial discrimination through his employment and that his subsequent dismissal for allegedly tampering with clocking-in cards was a fabrication.
Mr Declan O’Dempsey, representing one of the Respondent’s in the case, stated that Mr Rahman was “perfectly capable of raising a grievance” and that “he was not bothered [about the incident] and was an active and willing participant”. He also stated that the clocking-in activities that they were suspended for represented a “serious offence” and that their allegations were “unlikely”. The three employees have contended throughout the proceedings that they were victims of a “witch-hunt” and that the clocking-in allegations were fabricated and that CCTV footage was selectively edited in order to engineer their dismissal.
Chris Hadrill, an employment solicitor at Redmans, commented on the case: “Employers only have a duty to make a decision to dismiss that the reasonable employer would have made based on the facts before them. Allegations of witch-hunts and conspiracy theories are often unconvincing to an Employment Tribunal unless Claimants can point to hard documentary and witness evidence that such circumstances existed”.
The Employment Tribunal continues and a judgment is expected in due course.