STUC accused of race bias by former racism project worker

A FORMER staff member who worked in an anti-racism department at the Scottish Trade Union Congress (STUC) has accused the organisation of race discrimination.

Zaffir Hakim, who is of Pakistani origin, claims he was discriminated against when the STUC made him redundant in March last year, but kept on a white colleague working in a similar role.

A tribunal in Glasgow heard that the 47-year-old was employed as a development officer on the organisation’s flagship One Workplace Equal Rights (OWER) project.

STUC general secretary Grahame Smith insisted that Mr Hakim was made redundant because the Scottish Government refused to renew funding for his post.

Mr Hakim’s colleague Alan White worked as part of the STUC’s Equality Mentoring Work Shadowing (EMWS) project and his funding was due to run out on the same date.

However, money for this scheme, on which Mr Hakim worked one day a week, was extended by a few months so Mr White was kept on and was later given another STUC role.

Mr Hakim is suing the organisation for unfair dismissal and discrimination on grounds of race and victimisation. The STUC denies all of the claims.

Earlier this week, his representative, Jatin Haria, cross-examined Mr Smith.

The tribunal heard how Mr Hakim, of Glasgow, had 11 years’ service, while Mr White had been with the STUC for two years.

Asked why Mr Hakim had not been chosen to take over EMWS instead of being made redundant, the general secretary said: ‘I didn’t consider the length of service. My primary consideration was the requirement of the project and what was required to complete it.’

Peter O’Donnell, representing the STUC, said to Mr Smith: ‘It may be put to you that Mr White had taken over Mr Hakim’s job, is that correct?’ Mr Smith said: ‘No’.

The lawyer added: ‘What would have happened if funding for the OWER project had been continued and funding for EMWS had been stopped?’

Mr Smith replied: ‘Alan White would have left the organisation and Zaff would have continued with his employment.’

Later, under questioning from Mr O’Donnell, Mr Hakim admitted that there were three vacant roles on other STUC projects at the time he was made redundant.

One was in the Women in the Workplace section. But he claimed that he had been too ‘shell shocked’ by his dismissal to apply for another role at the time.

The tribunal also heard that Mr Hakim had raised an earlier tribunal claim, in May 2014, alleging racial discrimination against Mr Smith and the STUC. He later sent an email to his representative saying that he was withdrawing the allegation.

Mr Hakim claimed yesterday that Mr Smith was standing behind his shoulder when, on December 19, 2014, he sent that email.

Mr Smith claimed that this was ‘untrue’. The general secretary said he met Mr Hakim that day but had left in the early afternoon for the staff’s Christmas lunch. He went on: ‘I didn’t see him again that day, and that was the start of my holiday over the festive period.’

Cross-examining Mr Hakim, Mr O’Donnell said: ‘You’re presenting a case that the STUC were out to get you for the initial allegation, but that wasn’t the case.

‘I’ll suggest to Mr Hakim that the clear reason his employment came to an end was because he was redundant and nothing to do with his race.’

The claimant and respondent must now send written submissions to the tribunal panel by September 9. The panel will then give its judgment within the following four weeks.

‘He had been left shell shocked’