Exclusive

BRUM COUNCIL LOSES APPPEAL IN RACISM ROW

23-11-2007

Birmingham City Council has unsuccessfully appealed an Industrial Tribunal verdict, which ruled that it victimised and racially discriminated against a black former worker. The city's chief legal officer, one of his senior officials and Liberal Democrat councillor were all implicated in the judgement.

As we revealed in March, former legal services worker Paul Samuels had a string of grievances against the local authority after losing his job in 2005, many of which were dismissed by the Tribunal (see link here)

In two key areas, however, he was vindicated. The Tribunal decided that he had been discriminated against on grounds of race, and that he had been victimised.

Birmingham's chief legal officer Mirza Ahmad, his assistant director David Tatlow and Mike Ward, the Lib Dem councillor for Sheldon were all criticised in the written ruling.

Tatlow, the second most senior legal officer in the city, suspended Samuels after a long-running row over pay and grading. The Tribunal said he was "wholly unsatisfactory in explaining his motive for deciding to suspend the claimant".

When Tatlow's boss Mirza Ahmad got involved, he called a meeting at a time when he knew both Samuels and his union rep would be unable to attend.

The Tribunal considered that "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."

Mike Ward, who sat on the Council's own job appeals committee was condemned for his "extremely vague" evidence, and the minute-taking process was rubbished as well - "The tribunal was appalled at the total absence of any documentary record to substantiate the conclusions reached by the committee."

Thus it was ruled that "(1) the claimant was unfairly dismissed (2) the respondents discriminated against the claimant on grounds of race (3) the respondents victimised the claimants".

Given the damning nature of the verdict, it's astonishing that Birmingham City Council didn't settle there and then; instead they went to appeal on five different grounds - all of which were dismissed at a hearing month ago, but which The Stirrer is now making public for the first time.

A "remedy" meeting to discuss Paul Samuels' compensation is due in February - although we understand the Council is planning a further appeal to the High Court.

Quite how much taxpayers' cash it's costing to retain the services of the esteemed barrister Mr Edward Pepperall to fight this battle, the Council aren't saying. Nor will they tell us how much it has cost so far. Fear not, though, we will keep trying to find out.

Clearly, they believe preserving the reputation of the Chief Legal Officer and his second in command is worth every penny.