Charity ordered to pay £16,000 to unfairly dismissed employee after appeal

A Muslim charity has been ordered to pay more than £16,000 to a former employee for unfair dismissal, an employment tribunal has heard.

Zubair Valimulla was employed by the Al-Khair Foundation as a Mosque Liaison Officer (MLO) at the charity’s Bolton branch from February 2018 until his dismissal at the end of October 2020.

Valimulla, who was responsible for community fundraising, working in public and private schools, claimed he did not receive severance pay from the date of his dismissal until the start of his next full-time position on July 1, 2022.

He made an initial claim for unfair dismissal on February 18, 2020, which was heard on September 22, 2021, but his claim was rejected.

Valimulla appealed and in October 2023 the court upheld the appeal “in relation to the issue of whether there had been an adequate pooling exercise prior to the dismissal”.

An appeal hearing took place virtually at South London Employment Tribunal on 10 May and judgment was delivered last month.

The Al-Khair Foundation is a faith-based charity that provides emergency relief and development to impoverished areas around the world.

The charity underwent a restructuring in 2019 but Valimulla’s role was retained.

Valimulla was placed on leave during the pandemic on April 23, 2020.

Another restructuring was proposed in September 2020 and potential layoffs were announced.

“Although he was given notice of his dismissal, in the applicant’s case, when schools reopened in September 2020 he was able to return to work and resume fundraising,” the judgment reads.

“The defendant had a different point of view. He argued that even if, for example, mosques were open, they were only open for prayer and not for other activities, such as fundraising.

“The defendant also felt that in these desperate times donations were unlikely to be made as people did not know what the future held for them. »

The judgment states that the association has “changed direction” by becoming a humanitarian aid agency and that its future is “extremely uncertain”.

Valimulla attended three redundancy consultation meetings in September 2020 and was informed that his contract would be terminated on October 31, 2020.

When Valimulla was fired, the judgment said he challenged the selection panel for his position.

The court was told that the applicant’s role was “unique” and that he was therefore part of a self-selected group of people.

“Although this may have been the case, these factors could have been expressly made clear to the applicant during the process,” the judgment reads.

The judge said evidence from Valimulla’s line manager and the claimant showed there was “considerable overlap” between MLO’s roles and other roles within the charity that were described as “fundraising roles”.

“I did not find it credible that the defendant claims that the plaintiff’s role was unique and therefore unable to contemplate a dismissal with others,” the judge said.

“This seems to me to be too convenient an excuse to avoid carrying out a real pooling exercise. »

The claimant provided evidence from his GP that he had been unable to find alternative employment for health reasons between the date of his dismissal and 3 March 2021.

Valimulla’s GP notes said he was unable to work due to an “acute stress reaction” following his dismissal.

The court said it was unclear what the claimant was doing between March 2021, when his GP notes expired, and March 2022, when he started applying for jobs again.

Valimulla said he was depressed but had no medical diagnosis and used the stress of his first employment tribunal hearing in September 2021 to justify his refusal to provide details about that period.

The employment tribunal judge said it was “telling” that Valimulla had provided mitigation evidence for the period from his dismissal to March 2021 and from March 2022 to July 2022, but nothing for the year in between.

The judge said: “While I also accept that the plaintiff loved his job and would have liked to find another position in the same sector, I conclude that he could (and should) have found alternative employment in another sector offering a comparable salary of around £25,000 in the year following his dismissal.

“I would not expect the claimant to change careers immediately, but to do so at some point within 52 weeks of his dismissal (even taking into account the 16 weeks during which he had an acute stress reaction) would have been reasonable.

“I therefore consider it just and equitable to award the claimant an initial compensatory award equivalent to 52 weeks’ salary.”

Valimulla was awarded £16,789.52 in total – £16,289.52 for unfair dismissal and £500 for loss of legal rights.

The charity did not respond to a request for comment from Third Sector.