A tribunal found the organisation unfairly dismissed an employee of Pakistani descent
A charity withdrew support from an anti-racism march after organisers were found to have unfairly dismissed an employee of Pakistani descent.
The Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights (CRER) said it would be “inappropriate” to support the STUC’s St. Andrew’s Day March and Rally Against Racism following the ruling by an employment tribunal.
In its judgement, the tribunal found that the STUC unfairly dismissed and victimised former employee Zaffir Hakim after he raised an unsuccessful claim for racial discrimination.
Following the verdict, CRER announced it was withdrawing its speaker from the St. Andrew’s Day event, which it has sponsored for more than ten years.
It is our responsibility as an anti-racist organisation to take a stand against victimisation, even where our own interests are at stake
Chairwoman Sandra Deslandes-Clark, said: "We hope this judgement will convince the STUC of the need to take specific, appropriate action to address the procedural, policy and personal issues underlying their treatment of Mr Hakim, but until such time as we see evidence of action, we are unable to continue our support for the STUC.
"Regarding our commitment to provide a speaker and attend the St Andrew's Day March and Rally as a supporting organisation, we now feel this would be inappropriate.
"It is our responsibility as an anti-racist organisation to take a stand against victimisation, even where our own interests are at stake."
Mr Hakim, a former equality development officer at the STUC, originally launched a claim of racial discrimination after an unsuccessful bid for promotion.
He was then made redundant after the project he worked on - One Workplace Equal Rights – came to an end.
Last week, the tribunal agreed he had been unfairly dismissed and was the subject of victimisation. The STUC was cleared of a second racial discrimination charge.
The tribunal ruled the discrimination claim was behind the decision to make Mr Hakim redundant when other options could have been explored.
A spokesman for the STUC said: "We are disappointed (the tribunal) did not accept, on an aspect of process, that the dismissal was fair.
"We also fail to understand how we could be said to have unintentionally or unconsciously victimised the claimant and we intend to appeal."
