The following appear to be the central legal and factual issues identified by the statements of case:
1. Race Discrimination 1.1. Did the Respondents discriminate against the Claimant on the grounds of his race contrary to ss.1 & 4 of the RRA 1976? 1.2. Did the Respondents victimise the Claimant on the grounds of his race contrary to s.2 of the RRA 1976?
1.1. Did the Respondents discriminate against the Claimant on the grounds of his race contrary to ss.1 & 4 of the RRA 1976? 1.2. Did the Respondents victimise the Claimant on the grounds of his race contrary to s.2 of the RRA 1976?
1.2. Did the Respondents victimise the Claimant on the grounds of his race contrary to s.2 of the RRA 1976?
1.[a] Was the dismissal an act of race discrimination in that the Second Respondent was racially motivated and was instrumental in causing the First Respondent to dismiss the Claimant?
1.[b] Was the dismissal an act of unlawful victimisation, because the Respondents were motivated by the Claimant raising a grievance against the Second Respondent in respect of his conduct towards the Claimant?
1.[c] Did the Second Respondent subject the Claimant to less favourable treatment on racial grounds or racial harassment by the dismissal and prior to the dismissal by a series of actions by:
[i] Suspecting him of dishonesty in December 2002/January 2003 and/or causing a fraud investigation to be commenced against him; [ii] Previously in August 2000 commenting that he did not want the Claimant to be able to hear his conversations, and causing building works to the offices to block off the Claimant; [iii] From November 2002 onwards ordering the Claimant not to park his car in areas where other, white, employees were allowed to park; [iv] From January 2003 excluding the Claimant from involvement in project evaluation; [v] From February 2003 restricting the Claimant's internet and software access; [vi] From February 2003 refusing to authorise payment to the Claimant for portfolio evaluation duties which were beyond his job specification; [vii] From March 2003 removing the Claimant's authority to authorise staff loans following the approval of a loan to an employee from Pakistan; [viii] From March 2003 no longer emailing to the Claimant the Finance Committee Meeting Minutes and Estate Bursar's committee Meeting Minutes; [ix] In April 2003 refusing to replace a member of the Claimant's staff and then encouraging a Vietnamese employee not to join the Claimant's staff in the accounts team; [x] In May 2003 considering and dealing with VAT matters without consulting the Claimant; [xi] In June 2003 excluding the Claimant from administration of or invitation to the College Ball; [xii] In July 2003 not discussing the Claimant's team's pay review with the Claimant and completing salary and bonus figures without consulting the Claimant; [xiii] In September 2003 excluding the Claimant from auditor meetings and an internal audit; [xiv] In November 2003 requiring the Claimant to complete holiday forms unlike other white senior employees; [xv] In December 2003 excluding the Claimant from invitation to the College's topping out ceremony?
[ii] Previously in August 2000 commenting that he did not want the Claimant to be able to hear his conversations, and causing building works to the offices to block off the Claimant;
[iii] From November 2002 onwards ordering the Claimant not to park his car in areas where other, white, employees were allowed to park;
[iv] From January 2003 excluding the Claimant from involvement in project evaluation;
[v] From February 2003 restricting the Claimant's internet and software access;
[vi] From February 2003 refusing to authorise payment to the Claimant for portfolio evaluation duties which were beyond his job specification;
[vii] From March 2003 removing the Claimant's authority to authorise staff loans following the approval of a loan to an employee from Pakistan;
[viii] From March 2003 no longer emailing to the Claimant the Finance Committee Meeting Minutes and Estate Bursar's committee Meeting Minutes;
[ix] In April 2003 refusing to replace a member of the Claimant's staff and then encouraging a Vietnamese employee not to join the Claimant's staff in the accounts team;
[x] In May 2003 considering and dealing with VAT matters without consulting the Claimant;
[xi] In June 2003 excluding the Claimant from administration of or invitation to the College Ball;
[xii] In July 2003 not discussing the Claimant's team's pay review with the Claimant and completing salary and bonus figures without consulting the Claimant;
[xiii] In September 2003 excluding the Claimant from auditor meetings and an internal audit;
[xiv] In November 2003 requiring the Claimant to complete holiday forms unlike other white senior employees;
[xv] In December 2003 excluding the Claimant from invitation to the College's topping out ceremony?
2. Unfair Dismissal 2.1. Did the First Respondent unfairly dismiss the Claimant contrary to s.94 of the ERA 1996? 2.2. Was dismissal genuinely on grounds of a redundancy within s.98(2)(c) of the ERA 1996 or alternatively some other substantial reason within s.98(1)(b)? 2.3. If so, did the First Respondent act fairly in treating such alleged redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal (in accordance with s.98(4) of the ERA 1996)?
2.1. Did the First Respondent unfairly dismiss the Claimant contrary to s.94 of the ERA 1996? 2.2. Was dismissal genuinely on grounds of a redundancy within s.98(2)(c) of the ERA 1996 or alternatively some other substantial reason within s.98(1)(b)? 2.3. If so, did the First Respondent act fairly in treating such alleged redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal (in accordance with s.98(4) of the ERA 1996)?
2.2. Was dismissal genuinely on grounds of a redundancy within s.98(2)(c) of the ERA 1996 or alternatively some other substantial reason within s.98(1)(b)?
2.3. If so, did the First Respondent act fairly in treating such alleged redundancy as a sufficient reason for dismissal (in accordance with s.98(4) of the ERA 1996)?
2. [a] Was the Respondent's "restructuring" of its accounts department a genuine scheme designed to save (and having the effect of saving) overall costs or was it a "sham" exercise aimed at concealing a pre-determined decision (by the Second and/or First Respondent) to terminate the Claimant's employment?
2. [b] Was there a genuine redundancy situation at all?
2. [c] Was the decision to terminate the Claimant's contract as part of the alleged restructuring in any event a fair decision?
2. [d] Was the process adopted by the Respondents fair, specifically in that the decision to proceed with the restructuring was made by the College Finance Committee on 30th March 2004 and the Claimant was notified of termination of his employment by reason of "redundancy" without any consultation or warning by letter dated 1st April 2004 and was dismissed with immediate effect with no notice?
Grievance Process
3. Did the First Respondent conduct a proper and fair grievance process in respect of the Claimant's grievance about his unfair redundancy/race discrimination? Specifically was the grievance process genuine or had the First Respondent's Dr Tim Jenkinson pre-determined that the Claimant's grievance would fail and was Dr Jenkinson in error in requiring evidence of "explicitly racist comments or actions"? Was the grievance decision a decision which a reasonable employer could come to?
Appeal Process
4. Did the First Respondent conduct a proper and fair appeal against the grievance process decision in respect of the Claimant's grievance about his unfair redundancy/race discrimination? Specifically was the appeal process genuine or had the First Respondent's Mr Ed Peel pre-determined that the Claimant's appeal would fail? Was the appeal decision a decision which a reasonable employer could have come to?
Breach of Contract
5. Although the Respondents conceded at the Directions hearing the breach of contract issue (and subsequently paid the £9,526.01 due for payment in lieu of notice) there remain 3 very minor breach of contract claims outstanding, totalling £1,017.46 - see para. 116 of the Claimant's witness statement, including interest on the sums eventually admitted. (All counterclaims were unconditionally withdrawn at the Directions Hearing.)
Remedy/Quantum
6. The Claimant seeks compensation only. The Schedule of Loss is at p.123 of the Bundle. There are no specific issues raised by the Respondents in their Notice of Appearance or in their witness statements. It is not clear whether there are any issues.
James Stuart Counsel for the Claimant 18 January 2005