Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.
AIA

Tribunal watch: Awema FD wins dismissal case

by
22nd Aug 2012
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

The finance director of the now defunct All Wales Ethnic Minority Association (Awema) has won an unfair dismissal case and been awarded £4,010 in compensation.

Saquib Zia was accused of gross misconduct and sacked after he raised concerns last year about financial mismanagement and bullying at the Swansea-based charity.

By February a Welsh government audit report concluded there were "significant and fundamental failures" at the association. It emerged during the tribunal that funds for the charity, which has since gone into liquidation, were used to pay for gym memberships, rugby and cricket tickets, and a £110 parking fine.

Employment tribunal judge Roger Harper called the case a "textbook example of how not to dismiss somebody" and was astonished the charity had "actively ignored their own dismissal procedures".

The judge criticised the former chief executive of Awema, Naz Malik, and chair of trustees, Dr Rita Austin, saying he found that their testimony "evasive"

He also dismissed claims that Austin did not contact Zia because he was suffering from work-related stress, citing a letter sent to Zia to inform him of his dismissal.

"One can only imagine what adverse impact that would have on somebody who was away from work with stress," he said.

He criticised the charity's failure to consult a medical practitioner to see if it would be possible to speak with Zia.

As reported by the BBC, Zia issued the following statement after the case:

"I now feel vindicated by the decision of the employment tribunal that my dismissal was unfair. I am grateful to the judge for his careful and thorough consideration on my claim.

"I now look forward to putting this episode behind me and I hope that the remaining members of Awema board can accept and learn the lessons of its own failings that have led to Awema's demise."

The Wales Audit Office is carrying out its own review of the charity.

* * *

20 August - Finance consultant wins dismissal case

Cumbrian accountancy firm David Allen was caught up in a constructive dismissal case last week involving a finance consultant at its wealth management arm.

In February Joanne Faithorn resigned from her job with David Allen Wealth Management in Dalston, Cumbria, after she made an unsuccessful mortgage application on behalf of a long-standing client.

Last week at a tribunal in Carlisle she claimed constructive dismissal after the firm failed to follow its own disciplinary procedures.

As reported in local newspaper News & Star, Faithorn claimed she was given no alternative but to resign after the client suggested Faithorn had “fabricated” figures in processing a buy-to-let mortgage.

David Allen investigated the case and then wrote to Faithorn summoning her to a disciplinary meeting, despite them not having heard her side of the story.

She was then signed off sick by her doctor after complaining of work-related stress. When her solicitor asked for more information about the investigation, the firm wrote back saying it would only supply this on her return to work.

Judge Andrew Buchanan said: “If ever there was an example of an inadequate reply in response to grave concerns of the procedure, that was it.

“Everything smacks in that letter of a decision to move to disciplinary action without the claimant being able to comment and give her version of events.

“It seems to me that the letter was utterly flawed. It robbed the claimant of the right to an investigation.”

The tribunal also heard that the mortgage application ran into problems because the client was a first time buyer

Buchanan said he found no culpability by Faithorn that should reduce the amount of compensation he awarded, which was £7,179.12. He found that she had been constructively dismissed.

Tags:

Replies (5)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By justsotax
22nd Aug 2012 10:33

so were the figures fabricated?

....hmmm £7k doesn't seem much for a constructive dismissal......one wonders why.....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By neiltonks
22nd Aug 2012 12:12

New job?

Probably it's mostly a basic award based on age, length of service and with a capped "week's pay" value. These are quite low for younger people and those with a relatively short length of service. The additional "compensation" aspect of an award can generate bigger payouts but these too are often low in practice, usually because the individual has found alternative employment with the same or better prospects than the job which is the subject of the claim.

So, probably nothing sinister especially considering the Judge's remark that he "found no culpability by Faithorn that should reduce the amount of compensation he awarded,"

Thanks (0)
avatar
By justsotax
22nd Aug 2012 12:45

....alarm bells ringing...

1) Employee has a solicitor on speed dial

2) Employee takes time off for stress following initiation of investigation

3) Employee resigns before investigation complete

4) Employee walks into another job within weeks?

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
By Steve-EBL
23rd Aug 2012 16:43

?
There was an exclusive (of her) investigation and she was then called to a disciplinary meeting. This is enough to stress an employee. Most employees would consult a solicitor if inexpectedetly summoned to a disciplinary meeting. Human beings get very distressed when they are "turned on" by their employer, and resigning is a fight or flight type response, as psychologists say "emotional hijacking" took over her rational mind. I think what the judge concluded is, treat people with respect, innocent until guilty, proceed to disciplinary after at least a supportive conversation. Unfortunately it is all too common for new employers to hear the words "my last employer was truly awful" and it is accepted if the person and CV appears to have merit, so good on her for finding a new position.

Thanks (0)
By James Hellyer
23rd Aug 2012 09:59

Were they represented?
As costs aren't usually awarded at ET, justice probably came at a net loss if these claimants had legal representation.

Thanks (0)