Transcription

• Speaker #0

  Today in the Indicator HR and Employment Law podcast, we're discussing the judgment in the case of University of Bristol and Miller, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal was asked to determine whether anti-Zionism beliefs are a protected belief. A university professor, M, specialising in and teaching political sociology, made public comments describing political Zionism as being an inherently racist, imperialist and colonial ideology that ought to be opposed. In making those comments, M referred to and strongly criticised named Jewish student groups. The university dismissed him in October 2021 for gross misconduct and he brought claims in the Employment Tribunal. The tribunal upheld his claims of discrimination and unfair and wrongful dismissal. It found M's comments on Zionism reflected his genuinely held philosophical beliefs, that those beliefs were protected, that his expression of those beliefs were the reason for his dismissal, and that a lesser sanction than dismissal would have sufficed. However, it also found that some of the language M used when making the comments in question went beyond merely expressing his philosophical beliefs. In particular, the criticism aimed at the individual student groups. The tribunal considered that conduct to have contributed to his dismissal and reduced his compensation by 50% to reflect his culpability. It also found that had M's employment not ended when it did, that there was a 30% chance M would have been dismissed in October 2023 in any event due to posts he made on social media around that time. The university appealed, arguing that the tribunal had erred in finding that M's beliefs were capable of amounting to a protected belief, that the reduction in compensation for contributory fault should have been 100% on both the compensation for unfair dismissal and that awarded for discrimination , and that the Tribunal had not given adequate reasons for its conclusion that there was only a 30% chance M would have been dismissed in any event by October 2023. M cross-appealed against the Tribunal's findings on the reduction in compensation. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that the Tribunal had not erred in any of its conclusions on liability or in determining that the appropriate reduction to compensation to reflect contributory fault was 50%. It agreed with the Tribunal that M's beliefs were protected and that it was entitled to find that there was no basis on which to conclude that M was wholly to blame for his own dismissal, as argued by the University, and was also entitled to find that both M and the University were equally to blame. That was a matter of judgment for the Tribunal, and given there was no error of law, it was not for the Employment Appeal Tribunal to interfere. It did find, however, that the Tribunal had not sufficiently explained the basis for its conclusion, that there was a 30% chance that M's employment would have lawfully ended due to the social media posts. In particular, it did not take sufficient account of M's own evidence that had he not been dismissed, he would have used his continued employment as a launchpad to leave on his own terms, did not give adequate reasons as to why it felt M's employment would have continued until at least October 2023, and did not properly explain why there was only a 30% chance M's employment would have ended at that time. The Employment Appeal Tribunal referred that issue back to the same tribunal for reconsideration. Look out for further episodes in this series to stay up to date on all things HR and employment law related.