Employees – Racism – Suspension from work – Unfounded allegations of racist abuse

Centrewest London Buses Ltd v Ukachukwu: CA (Civ Div) (Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, Lords Justice Maurice Kay, Stanley Burnton): 8 October 2008

The appellant employee (U) appealed against a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) (UKEAT/0318/07/MAA) that an employment tribunal had been wrong in law to hold that the respondent employer (B) had acted unreasonably in suspending U.

U, a black African, had made a complaint that a colleague (M) had used racially abusive language during an altercation. M was immediately suspended pending further investigation. A few days later U was interviewed and gave an account of racially abusive language inconsistent with his previous account. M denied the allegation, and an independent witness confirmed that there had been no racial abuse. U was suspended on the basis that he may have made a false allegation. The suspension was confirmed after four other independent witnesses verified M’s account. An internal disciplinary procedure concluded that U’s claim of racial abuse had not been made, but ruled that no further action would be taken because it was unclear whether his account was a deliberate falsehood. As a result, U was free to return to work but never did so because of illness. He was subsequently dismissed and he issued proceedings for unfair dismissal. The employment tribunal held that B had acted unreasonably in suspending U. On appeal the EAT held that the employment tribunal had made a material error of law.

Held: The reasoning of the employment tribunal had been flawed. At the time U was suspended, his account of racial abuse contained inconsistencies, was denied by M and was contradicted by an independent witness. That was sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the racial abuse was unfounded. If it was reasonable to suspect that the complaint was unfounded it was also reasonable to suspect it was false. The EAT had correctly identified a material error of law in the employment tribunal’s decision. The suspension was a suspension pending investigation and was not a conclusion that U’s account was deliberately false.

Appeal dismissed.

Richard O’Dair (instructed by Fisher Meredith) for the appellant; Irvine Maccabe (instructed by Moorhead James) for the respondent.