Racism at Work: Birmingham City Council
The findings issued by Judge David Maxwell (3/8/23) in his reserved judgement of harassment related to race and direct race discrimination in the Employment Tribunal (ET) of Maz Dad v Birmingham City Council makes for horrific and shocking reading. It not only highlights the suffering and psychological trauma endured by Mr Dad since 2016 for simply doing his job, but exposes the workings of institutional racism at Europe’s largest municipal authority.
The ET was heard for nine days this May, though registered in August 2018 relating to events stretching as far back as November 2016 - May 2018. During this time Mr. Dad was suspended for a period of 18 months.
Mr. Dad represented himself throughout after his union, Unison refused representation stating the case was not winnable. An ordeal in itself when considering he was up against costly barristers hired by the Council making this a truly historic ‘David and Goliath’ victory.
In summary Mr. Dad’s case centred on a waste collection operative at the Redfern Waste Depot, where Mr. Dad was a Depot Manger, refusing to sign for protective equipment. The latter policy had been introduced in October 2015 and implemented during 2016.
Mr. Dad then took the required management disciplinary action in consolation with his superiors up to Director level. The waste collection operative and his union, Unite, thereafter lodged a complaint of bullying and harassment against the three managers at the Depot (Mr. Dad being Pakistani and the other two white) stating the operative had been singled out. A petition was drawn up by Unite with 70 stated signatures, but only 20 were ever produced from the first sheet of the petition, which had the declaration on it. A counter petition followed from Unison members stating they were tricked into signing, without sight of the petition declaration, they believed it was to reinstate the suspended operative. The counter petition signatories stated they had no complaint against the Depot Managers. Mr. Dad and his fellow managers were accused of interfering with the management investigation against them, given the counter petition was signed by workers after their shift in the Redfern Depot small office, where the managers were based. For this the managers were charged with cross misconduct leading to a final written warning.
Despite, management agreeing to the disciplinary action taken by the Depot managers, this was ignored in the investigation proceeding against the Depot Managers of allegedly bullying and harassment in singling out the operative refusing to sign for the protective equipment. In fact, the Director level support of the managers carrying out the disciplinary action was withheld by the investigating HR Officer in her report to the disciplinary hearing relating to Mr. Dad, but included for his two managerial colleagues.
Judge Maxwell judgement found the investigation against Mr. Dad to be unfair, flawed and a means to an end to prevent potential industrial action and therefore predetermined. One of Mr. Dad’s fellow managers had no faith in Council processes, given what had happened, so he resigned and lodged an ET, which he won.
During the protracted investigation against Mr. Dad his job was advertised, and his office was turned into a storeroom with his belonging discarded on to the floor. The clear intent demonstrated by the Council actions being that Mr. Dad would not be returning, despite the investigation against him still ongoing. Mr. Dad’s disciplinary hearing charged him with cross-misconduct removing him from the Depot and sending him to Housing. This was not the same outcome for the other remaining white manager charged with cross-misconduct who was returned to the Depot.
The ET found Rob James (Executive Director for Operations, now retired) and Darren Share (Director of Street Scene) City Council witnesses were both unreliable in that they knew what they were saying to be untrue. The ET asked Rob James, who ruled on all three Managers cross-misconduct disciplinary hearings, whether the information presented to the ET was grounds for a cross-misconduct against Mr. Dad. His response was that it was not. However, all this information was available at the disciplinary he ruled on.
Redfern was the best-performing Council Depot under Mr. Dad’s management and since his removal it has become the worse, as noted by ET witnesses. Mr. Dad removal to housing effectively end his promising career potential. This at a time when the Council’s upper senior management is far from reflective of the City’s ethnically diverse communities, especially from the Pakistani community.
Judge Maxwell concluded the disciplinary against Mr. Dad was ‘a devise, pursued in bad faith and his treatment unfair’. He added, The Council acted against the three managers with one aim – to appease Unite representatives and advert industrial action’. In doing so the Asian Manager of the three was dealt with ‘more severely and banished from the job he loved – on the grounds of race’.
Judge Maxwell’s ET ruling also has potentially political implications as to who knew what when, and indeed if there was any political directions involved, especially given what transpired a few months after these events with the bin strike in 2017. This not only cost the City Council £14m, but also the then Leader of the Council John Clancy his job.
Mr. Dad’s case is a clear illustration of how a culture of institutional racism is allowed to persist at the Council. Institutional racism exists through the embedded structures, policies, procedures, practices, and the biases of those that operate and oversee all these institutional elements. The same conclusion can be drawn from the Rebecca Callum v West Midlands Police ET outcome earlier this year. Unfortunately, we can expect little progress until these institutions acknowledge the existence of institutional racism and how it operates in their organisation. It is not a simple matter of revamping polices, it requires an ongoing concerted effort to change the very fabric of Council’s culture and serious accountability to the global majority communities they serve and employees in these organisations.
BRIG’s 2022 BRIG Newsletter reported on the toxic culture of racism endured by the City Council’s Labour Group Global Majority Councillors as reported via the leaked anonymous survey conducted by the Cllr. Saima Suleman. This was supposed to have led to an Independent Review announced by the then Leader, Cllr. Ian Ward. However, this was overtaken by intervention of the Labour HQ Birmingham Campaign Improvement Group (BCIG), which on concluding its work upheld the views of a toxic culture expressed in the survey. Alongside, this Cllr. Ward was removed as Leader for not having the full support of the Council’s Labour Group and replaced by Cllr. John Cotton, the former Equalities Cabinet Member. It is unclear whether an actual investigation was carried out by the BCIG with firm actionable recommendation to address the issues raised.
Since, Mr. Dad’s ET judgement reported by Jayne Hayes in the Birmingham Mail (10/9/23), BRIG have been approached by dozens of global majority employees at the Council, who wished to remain anonymous expressing their outrage, inclusive of Councillors, as to Mr. Dad’s treatment and sharing their own experiences. They applauded Mr. Dad’s bravery in taking on the Council at great cost to himself and questioned why the case has been allowed to go on for so long by the Executive and Leadership. One employee said ‘Maz’s experience flies in the face of the Council’s ‘Everyone’s Battle Everyone’s Business’ (EBEB) Policy, in that Maz’s battle was clearly no bodies business to sort out’. A number also expressed astonishment, even after Mr. Dad’s ordeal why the Council’s statement could not simply say sorry - instead opting to go with their legal team would ‘assess if any grounds for appeal’, this despite stating they will consider any lessons learned!
The Leader, Cllr. John Cotton, has previously said as Cabinet Member for Equalities that uncomfortable conversation needed to be had, as well saying the City Council is institutionally racist. From Mr. Dad’s case it would appear these conversations have not been uncomfortable enough. Only genuine uncomfortable conversations will lead to the required long term cultural change against racism at the Council. For this to happen there must be trust. Currently there is very little trust with both employees and communities given pending job losses and service cuts following the Council’s bankruptcy.
Just as the Leader has called for a judge led inquiry into the Council’s bankruptcy, BRIG are calling on the Leader to hold a judge led inquiry into Mr. Dad’s case and the culture of fear amongst global majority employees, and some of his own party councillors, to openly raise issues of racism they are experiencing. There is no point having a robust policy framework to address racism at the Council when the employees have no faith getting justice and fairness as demonstrated by Mr. Dad’s ET findings. A loyal high performing employee of over 30 years’ service hung out to dry.
Further Reading:
Full judgment for further reading
Birmingham waste boss who stood up to 'insubordinate' binman was abandoned by council to 'appease union' Jayne Hayes – Birmingham Mail, 10/9/23. https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/racism-lies-union-intimidation-city-27677637?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
Does the Birmingham Labour Group have a toxic culture of racism? BRIG Newsletter December 2022.