EXCLUSIVE

BIRMINGHAM COUNCIL “RACIST” SAYS TRIBUNAL

16-03-2007

The Stirrer can reveal that an employment tribunal has found Birmingham City Council guilty of race discrimination and victimisation of one of its workers. A damning judgement condemns the city's legal officer, one of his senior officials and a Liberal Democrat councillor.

The action was brought by Paul Samuels a former legal assistant with the local authority, who had a series of grievances and complaints against his employers - many of which were rejected by the tribunal.

But claims that he had been unfairly dismissed, that he was discriminated against on the basis of race, and that he had been victimised were all upheld.

Among those implicated in the verdict are Mirza Ahmad the city's chief legal officer; one of his assistant directors David Tatlow, and Mike Ward, a LibDem councillor for Sheldon.

All three are severely criticised by the tribunal which handed down its verdict on February 7 but which hasn't been recorded anywhere in the media - until now.

The full judgement runs to 83 pages, and few of those involved escape unscathed - including the man who brought the case, Mr Samuels. He claimed, for example, that a colleague called him a “horrible black man” - but the tribunal's conclusion is that, “the words alleged had not been used.”

It also says that he behaved “in an unreasonable and negative manner” to council bosses who tried to help him; that he had “a negative and egocentric mindset”; and an “obsessive determination…to infer a sinister, racist motive...which was quite unjustified.”

For all that, the tribunal still upheld a number of his most serious complaints, and their verdict poses troubling questions for the council's hierarchy.

Samuels' dispute with the council started sometime after he was recruited in 2002, when he raised issues about his pay and grading, but the dispute took a significant step forward in March 2005 when an exchange of e-mails with a colleague led to his suspension and eventual dismissal

This is also the point at which the tribunal starts taking serious issue with his treatment.

David Tatlow, who is second only to the city's legal officer in rank, “was wholly unsatisfactory in explaining his motive for deciding to suspend the claimant”, it said. What's more, it judged that Samuels “had been victimised by Mr Tatlow's decision to suspend him”.

By now, Samuels was sick with stress and unable to work anyway, but when he attended a disciplinary meeting in May 2005, he was told that his wife could not accompany him. There was no rule against it, and Tatlow is criticised for “a totally harsh and inflexible line” in refusing to allow her to attend. Crucially, Samuels left without putting his side of the story.

There was worse to follow, when under Tatlow's supervision the Council pressed ahead with a further hearing, beforeSamuels was well enough to attend. The tribunal concluded “that there had been unexplained and unnecessary haste in advancing the process.”

The case was then taken over by Mirza Ahmed, Birmingham Council's legal officer. He called another meeting, despite knowing that both Samuels and his union rep would be unable to attend - the tribunal judged that this was “unreasonable”. What's more, Mr Ahmad was over-reliant “on his own ability to conduct the proceedings in a totally objective manner.”

Overall, it said, “there had been flaws in the investigatory process of a serious nature” and “it had not been necessary to proceed at the pace dictated by Mr Ahmad...the unfortunate consequence of his insistence in sticking to his timetable was that a balanced presentation of the evidence was not achieved.”

Some of the harshest criticism, however, is reserved for the committee which heard Samuels' appeal to get his sacking over-turned.

The tribunal records that Councillor Mike Ward who sat on the committee was “extremely vague” in recalling what had happened and that “his written statement provided no elucidation.”

Then there's this damning verdict on the council's shoddy minute-keeping during the appeals process: “The tribunal was appalled at the total absence of any documentary record to substantiate the conclusions reached by the committee.”

It continues: “The intellectual processes by which the panel considered the evidence in order to arrive at its decision remained a mystery…the evidence of Councillor Ward coupled with the unsatisfactory record of the panel's conclusion was wholly unsatisfactory.”

And so “the unanimous verdict of the tribunal is that (1) the claimant was unfairly dismissed (2) the respondents discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race (3) the respondents victimised the claimants”.

It is an unambiguous ruling - and one which is all the more shocking for the involvement of two senior officers and a leading councillor.