A Muslim charity has been ordered to pay an ex-employee more than £16,000 for unfair dismissal, an employment tribunal revealed.
Zubair Valimulla was employed by the Al-Khair Foundation as a masjid liaison officer (MLO) at the charity’s Bolton branch from February 2018 until he was made redundant at the end of October 2020.
Valimulla, who was responsible for fundraising in the community, working in public and private schools, claimed he did not receive redundancy pay from his dismissal date until his next full-time role began on 1 July 2022.
He presented an initial claim of unfair dismissal on 18 February 2020, which was heard on 22 September 2021, but the claim was dismissed.
Valimulla appealed and in October 2023 the tribunal upheld the appeal “in relation to the question of whether there had been an adequate pooling exercise prior to redundancy”.
A remedy hearing took place virtually from London South Employment Tribunal on 10 May and the judgment was released last month.
Al-Khair Foundation is a faith-based charity that provides emergency relief and development worldwide to impoverished areas.
The charity underwent a restructure in 2019 but Valimulla’s role was retained.
Valimulla was furloughed during the pandemic on 23 April 2020.
Another restructure was proposed in September 2020 and notice was given of potential redundancies.
“Although he was on notice of redundancy, as far as the claimant was concerned, when schools reopened in September 2020, he was able to return to work and to resume fundraising,” the judgment reads.
“The respondent had a different view. The respondent’s position was that even if, for example, mosques were open, they were only open for prayer and not for other activities, such as fundraising.
“The respondent also took the view that in these desperate times, it was unlikely that donations would be made, as people did not know what the future held.”
The judgment said the charity “changed direction” by becoming an aid agency and said its future was “extremely uncertain”.
Valimulla had three redundancy consultation meetings in September 2020 and was told his contract would be terminated on 31 October 2020.
When Valimulla was made redundant, the judgment said he took issue with the selection pool for his role.
The tribunal was told the claimant’s role was “unique” and so he was in a self-selecting pool of one.
“While that may have been the case, those factors could have been made expressly clearer to the claimant in the course of the process,” the judgment reads.
The judge said that evidence provided by Valimulla’s line manager and the claimant showed there was “considerable overlap” between the MLO roles and other roles within the charity that were described as “fundraising roles”.
“I did not find it credible for the respondent to say that the claimant’s role was unique and therefore incapable of consideration for redundancy with others,” the judge said.
“That appears to me to be too convenient an excuse for avoiding carrying out a proper pooling exercise.”
The claimant provided evidence from his GP that he was not able to find alternative employment due to health reasons between his dismissal date and 3 March 2021.
Valimulla’s GP notes stated he was unable to work because of an “acute stress reaction” following his redundancy.
The tribunal said it was not clear what the claimant was doing between March 2021 when his GP notes expired until March 2022 when he started applying for jobs again.
Valimulla said he was depressed but did not have a medical diagnosis and used the stress of his initial employment tribunal hearing in September 2021 as his justification for not providing details from that period.
The employment tribunal judge said it was “telling” that Valimulla provided evidence of mitigation 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: “Although I also appreciate that the claimant enjoyed his job and would have liked to have found another role in the same sector, it is my conclusion that he could (and should) have been able to find alternative employment in a different sector paying a comparable salary of around £25,000 within a year of his dismissal.
“I would not expect the claimant to have changed careers immediately but doing so at some point within 52 weeks of dismissal (even taking account of the 16 weeks when he had an acute stress reaction) would have been reasonable.
“I therefore consider it just and equitable to make an initial compensatory award to the claimant of 52 weeks’ pay.”
Valimulla was awarded £16,789.52 in total – £16,289.52 for the unfair dismissal and £500 for the loss of statutory rights.
The charity did not respond to a request for comment from Third Sector.