The Employment Tribunal in Birmingham recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Mr T Shah v Food Hub Limited, offering important lessons for HR professionals and business leaders on the limits of procedural fairness and the potential consequences of predetermined dismissal processes.
Background
Mr Tanveer Shah, a senior employee at Food Hub Limited, filed claims for unfair dismissal, religious discrimination, and breach of contract. The tribunal dismissed his discrimination and breach of contract claims but ruled in his favour on unfair dismissal, awarding £61,419.50.
Mr Shah, an orthodox Muslim, wears traditional Islamic clothing, including a long robe and head covering. Food Hub Limited, an app-based food delivery business, operates in the UK, Egypt, and India. At the time of Mr Shah’s dismissal, roughly 45% of the workforce identified as Muslim, and the company offered prayer rooms and flexible schedules for Friday prayers.
The case also examined Mr Shah’s absences from the UK. Tribunal documents noted he could not clearly recall whether he had spent several days or weeks in Egypt at the end of 2021 and the start of 2022. Food Hub expected him to remain in the UK performing his duties. This uncertainty became a point of contention but did not form the primary reason the tribunal ruled in his favour.
The tribunal heavily criticised the dismissal process. Although Food Hub conducted investigations, hearings, and an appeal, the tribunal found that senior management orchestrated the process to achieve a predetermined outcome. Investigators left gaps, mismanaged key evidence, and decision-makers lacked independence, with one being a probationary employee. This “window-dressing” meant that, despite appearances, the tribunal concluded that Mr Shah’s dismissal lacked procedural fairness.
Key Findings on Procedure
The Tribunal highlighted serious flaws in the dismissal process:
Predetermined outcome: The CEO had already decided on dismissal before the formal process began. Investigations, hearings, and appeals were conducted in a way that “window-dressed” fairness, giving the appearance of due process without genuine independence or impartiality.
Inappropriate decision-makers: The disciplinary process involved individuals ill-equipped to assess the case, including a probationary employee. Investigations were incomplete, with vital evidence either not gathered or misrepresented.
Failure of fairness: The Tribunal stressed that a process that is orchestrated to achieve a predetermined result is no better than having no process at all.
These findings align with recent case law emphasizing that procedural compliance in form is not sufficient if the process lacks substantive fairness.
Impact on the Employee
The tribunal considered the effects of Mr Shah’s dismissal. Following his departure, he suffered health issues, including emergency heart surgery, and later depression and anxiety, worsened by financial stress and unemployment. The tribunal concluded that his difficulties directly resulted from the dismissal.
Mr Shah actively sought new employment, but prospective employers hesitated once they learned about the ongoing tribunal, extending his unemployment period. The tribunal awarded a 25% ACAS uplift to reflect the bad faith in the dismissal process.
HR Takeaways
Predetermining outcomes is a high-risk strategy
No amount of procedural window-dressing will protect against an unfair dismissal claim if the outcome is predetermined.
Ensure independent decision-making
Disciplinary panels and investigators must be impartial and appropriately trained. Probationary employees or those with conflicts of interest should not make critical decisions.
Document contemporaneously
Lack of records and evidence can complicate decision-making and weaken an employer’s position in tribunal proceedings.
Consider the wider impact of dismissal
Tribunals take employee wellbeing, health, and financial consequences into account when calculating compensation.
ACAS Code compliance is not optional
Procedural fairness in spirit and in fact matters, not just in form. A sham process can trigger an uplift in compensation.
Final Thoughts
This case serves as a stark reminder that HR procedures are only as robust as their execution. Employers must ensure fair, transparent, and evidence-based disciplinary processes to avoid costly tribunal awards and reputational damage.
For HR professionals, the Shah v Food Hub Limited case reinforces the importance of genuine procedural fairness, careful documentation, and proactive employee engagement when managing disciplinary matters.
