Showing posts with label employment tribunal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label employment tribunal. Show all posts

Wednesday, 29 May 2019

Racism in the NHS: A low level localised fever 'bubbling away in the background" or a toxic and deadly epidemic?



Please Share. #RacismAtKings 
The Richard Hastings now famous case, that of a former IT manager at Kings College who was sacked by his employer after 19 yrs. Loyal service and eventually won £1 million compensation at Employment Tribunal is just one of many such examples I have discovered of a culture of workplace racism within the National Health Service.

Richards's nightmare experience in many ways characterises a common experience as related by many black NHS employees. In the 1950/60's the Windrush pioneering generation frequently were met with racial hostility and hatred.


Many faced comments such as being told to, "wash that dirty black off your skin", and face the most profound racial and physical abuse.

Kings CEO Dr Clive Kay 
Seventy years on, although many things have changed in relation to NHS black workers, facing awful racism in the workplace, that reality remains an all too familiar tale today. Whilst the crude racism of yesteryear has all but gone from the NHS, there remains a thriving culture of racial privilege proving racism is alive in the NHS.

There is a deep irony that an institution whose purpose is to cure illness and disease appears to be an incubator of this enduring malady – but it comes as no surprise to thousands of black staff working there.

Over the course of making my soon-to-be-released documentary #RacismAtKings (more about that later) I interviewed very many current and former staff, who are or have worked at Kings College Hospital London. In this documentary, I feature Richard and others

The narrative I heard back from all was horrifyingly consistent with Richards's own terrible experience. Time and time again I heard workers speak of trying to confront racism and finding themselves becoming targeted by management as a result.

And these are not isolated examples, there is a much deeper systemic problem in Kings. That problem is reflected more broadly in the NHS nationally. Next time you have the opportunity to chat with a minority ethnic NHS worker, casually drop into the conversation "How are things for black people working in your hospital?"

No doubt some will be initially reluctant to speak badly of their employer – after all let's not forget most are there out of a sense of vocation, not self-interest. But with gentle encouragement, these NHS Black workers will withdraw their finger from the NHS dyke and a rush of fetid tales will wash away your disbelief.

Black and Asian nurses have a strong reputation for going the extra mile for patients. Doctors from all BAME backgrounds take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm "premium non-nocere,".

So much real and lasting harm is being done to black staff and patients inside the walls of our much-loved health service -  which leads us back to Mr Hastings.

Let me briefly reiterate that the events that engulfed him making the point that these are are neither rare nor exceptional instances. A recent report by the NHS Leadership Academy states "racism is bubbling away in the background"

The report shows that things are in an incredibly bad way within the NHS with a massive 81% of acute hospital trusts, reporting a higher proportion of BAME staff, as compared to white staff stated they had "personally experienced discrimination" from their supervisor or colleagues, and there were similar results at 80% of ambulance trusts, 87% of community trusts and 73% of mental health and learning disability trusts.

The Workforce Race Equality Standard. A series of national, race equality progress reports, published annually to show the extent of progress made, also found a higher proportion of BAME NHS staff experiencing harassment, bullying and abuse from both patients and the public, responses constituted a staggering 44% of acute trusts, 60% of ambulance trusts, 65% of community trusts and 80% of mental health and learning disability trusts.

The majority of BAME staff questioned in the study, also said that they did not believe their organisation offered equal career progressions for BME and white staff this was true for black staff at 86% of acute trusts, 50% of ambulance trusts, 80% of mental health and learning disability trusts and a shocking 100% of community trusts.

All of this information is well documented, is in the public domain and widely reported. One has thousands of very serious questions given these appalling figures, is why despite all of the NHS commitment to tackling racial inequality over the last 20 to 40 years does this situation continue to exist?

The real reason for such stunning lack of progress, is that the leadership of the NHS including senior staff and the public treat racism like a common cold – it's irritating, rub song Vicks on your chest, take some cough syrup and wait for it to go away.

It is not until pneumonia claims a life that the system reacts with any sense of urgency. When a leading NHS Trust, such as Kings College Hospital in London, is ordered to pay £1m in damages to a former employee for outright and blatant racial workplace discrimination – what this case and these reports demonstrate is that the NHS, doesn't have a common cold, it has acute pneumonia misdiagnosed as a common cold.

The case. 

Dawn Broderick Kings Executive Director Workplace Development 
Richard Hastings was an IT manager with King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, in south London. Mr Hastings was accused of assault after an affray with a contractor and delivery van driver in the hospital's car park in 2015.

This particular incident began one bright morning when Mr Hastings, who was in a loading bay at the hospital, waiting for a parking space to become free. As he waited he became involved in a minor parking dispute and was subsequently sworn at by a white van driver. When Mr Hastings approached the van, which contained three men, he said the driver made a number of racially charged comments during a "war of words". In the heated argument, Mr Hastings said the contractor told him about his skin colour, telling him: "Careful it doesn't come off".

Mr Hastings said that when he gave the driver his name the white van man reacted with disbelief, apparently shocked that Richard had such an "English-sounding name". When the contractor found out he was a manager at the hospital, Mr Hastings said he exclaimed: "Look! They'll let anything happen here" yet another racially charged comment.

At one point the white van driver placed his hand on his forearm and he reacted by lifting his and in so doing unintentionally made contact with the contractor's face. Mr Hastings called the hospital's security office for help during the confrontation but nobody came to his aid. Black hospital staff take care of the nation's sick but frequently find themselves deserted by their employers and institutions when suffering from racist abuse or physical attack at work.

This begs the question who takes care of the black care-takers??

After the incident, Mr Hastings told colleagues what had happened and with their encouragement he reported it. But after an allegation was made that he assaulted white van man he was summarily suspended.

After a formal investigation by Kings, which the tribunal found was tainted by "unconscious bias", Mr Hastings was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct.

Kings had sacked him after an " investigation" that ignored his allegations that he had been subjected to racist abuse. Their flawed disciplinary process was also found, by the tribunal to have unfairly painted Mr Hastings as "the aggressor", based on their own preconceptions of him as an aggressive black man.

This is a common stereotype deployed against thousands of black male staff, but thankfully for Richard, on this occasion, the hospital car park CCTV footage showed the contrary.

Despite being the real aggressors the white van contractors were seen by the Trust as "the victims" during the investigation process. The tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that during the investigatory hearing Mr Hastings provided hard evidence of racial abuse and of foul and offensive language being directed at him, but this was not investigated. In fact, in reality, that evidence was ignored.

The employment tribunal quite rightly concluded, "by failing to investigate this the claimant was treated less favourably because of race."

Mr Hastings has been left "completely broken" by this experience. He has so far failed to re-establish his career despite applying for many jobs, had lost weight and had trouble sleeping. He told the Guardian newspaper at the time: "It was very hurtful but what was even more hurtful was the treatment from the organisation I'd been with for nearly 19 years. I was devastated. Each part of the process left me even more helpless. This whole thing over three years has taken a tremendous toll on my physical and mental health. It was totally unnecessary."

The tribunal said his evidence, "as a black man of Caribbean origin, was treated with unwarranted distrust and disbelief". By contrast, the tribunal found him to be an honest witness while identifying numerous inconsistencies and flaws in the opposing evidence.

A spokesman for the trust said: "The trust has apologised to Mr Hastings and we would like to extend that apology once again." He said the trust had implemented changes to improve support to staff. But haven't we heard this many times before, over the last 40 years?

These well-used platitudes are facile and an insult to the 200,000 black staff working in the NHS. As taxpayers we are the ones who foot the bill for the millions that are spent by incompetent managers, defending indefensible race claims.

As customers of the NHS, we are the ones who ultimately suffer because staff performance drops when staff are feeling abused, harassed and discriminated against. At a time when the NHS is casting its net around the world, to fill the current shortage of doctors and nurses, Can we really afford an NHS with a reputation for treating black people like tainted goods?

My best wishes go out to Mr Hastings, we shall continue to advocate for his colleagues at King's and tell their stories.

In coming weeks I am reaching out to Elliot Browne and others who are part of the £1m plus NHS compensation club to learn their views on how their cases have impacted practice in their former trusts.

In future blogs, I shall be throwing a searing spotlight on hotspots of bullying and racial harassment. Send me your stories. I'm hearing there is something "bubbling away in the background" in Berkshire – it shall come to light right here - watch this space.

If you have a case you like me to cover, that further exposes racism suffered by black workers within the National Health Service then please do contact me directly by emailing me all reaching out on social media.

That which is done in the dark must be brought into the light if we are to finally bring an end to the appalling working conditions black and ethnic minority workers within the NHS.

Lee Jasper will be speaking at the Unite branch meeting to take place on June 11th at 1pm taking place at Kings College Hospital, the boardroom. Contact Unite Branch Secretary Frank Wood for more details email frank.wood@nhs.net

Sunday, 19 May 2019

Black Bean Counting Fails to Cure Epic #NHSRacism

Black Bean Counting Fails to Cure Epic #NHSRacism  


There is an epidemic of racism within our beloved NHS. It is not only harming the career prospects of BAME staff it is literally killing some of them. 
The more I looked into this area the more of a scandal appeared before me.

Aside from the recent case Of Richard Hastings previously of in Kings College Hospital  London, an interesting case that garnered national headlines (my forthcoming documentary #RacismAtKings will be launched in the next few days), and as I have recently discovered there have been very many other standout cases. 

One such case is Eliot Browne a 55-year old manager who was dismissed in 2008 by Central Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust. He was deemed by an employment tribunal to have suffered racial discrimination at the hands of his employer, and received an award of almost £1 million in damages. The Trust apparently never apologised to Mr Browne, and appealed against the tribunal decision. It subsequently lost the appeal. It was reported at the tribunal that witnesses for the Trust closed ranks and that disciplinary action was commenced against Mr Browne to get him sacked. A union official commented, “The systematic intimidation and bullying of a single individual, the like of which I have never seen in my career as a regional union officer, was breathtaking and callous”. Mr Browne is reported to have stated, “It is scandalous that this kind of behaviour should exist in an organisation whose prime purpose is to care for others”.

Of course Black people have not just been content to be punching bags in the battle for fir and decent treatment. The NHS BME Network gave an outstanding account of themselves in the fight for many years. The Network was led by Dr Vivienne Lyfar-Cissé a Principal Clinical Biochemist in Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals (BSUH) NHS Trust. During the early years she stood out as an unflinching advocate for race equality in the NHS. She Chaired a number of BME Networks including the Surrey and Sussex BME Network; the South East Coast BME Network and was the Transitional Lead for the NHS BME Network before being elected Chair of the Network in        2012.

Under Vivienne’s leadership The South East Coast BME Network published The Equality Service Reviewreport July 2008. It was not easy to acquire the data from the Trusts in the region but against incredible odds the review was completed and showed statistical evidence of the huge disparity in the experience of BME staff compared to their white counterparts. Vivienne went on to form the NHS BME Network which began the work of holding the NHS leadership to account at national level. The Network at its peak held conferences in Mayfair hotels attended by NHS leading lights with audiences of over 500 NHS professionals. There was a famous moment when David Nicholson (then NHS CEO) was summoned from his office by Network’s Annual Conference, subsequently mailing his apologies for not taking the time to appear in person. 

Unfortunately, as with many black movements, internal and external political pressures caused fragmentation and its eventual decline.

Vivienne and her colleagues Dr Isaac John, Kenny Dhun, Henry Oblie, Nolan Victory and Joel O’Loughlin are the unsung heroes of the current approach to race equality watch out for forthcoming interviews with them on my You Tube Channel. 

The report they published in 2008 established the basis for measuring the BME experience and led to 3 Trusts being issued Compliance Orders by the Equality & Human Rights Commission. This meant they were in breach of the Race Relation Amendment Act (2000) failing in their duty to tackle institutional racism. The methodology was picked up by Roger Kline a researcher in Research Fellow at Middlesex University Business Schoolwho published old wine in a new bottle in a report called ‘Snowy White Peaks’. The premise of the title is the higher you climb up the NHS hierarchy the whiter it gets. Roger went on to become the Director, Workforce Race Equality Standard (Research and Engagement) at NHS England. - Vivienne fell from grace and was fired for discrimination.
 
The NHS made implementing the Workforce Race Equality Standard (WRES) a requirement for NHS commissioners and NHS healthcare providers including independent organisations, through the NHS standard contract in 2015. From 2017, independent healthcare providers were also required to publish their WRES data.
The first WRES report, was published in June 2016, followed by the 2016 WRES report on 19 April 2017. In the first two years, not all the Trust provided quality data and what was produced showed appalling disparities which evidence systemic discrimination. It’s hard to criticise an evidence based approach to tackling a persistent blight on the NHS, but counting beans is useless unless you marry it up with action to make things better. There has been a marked lack of such initiatives. and today the NHS is experiencing an epidemic of racial discrimination and bullying of BAME staff.
It is time for the NHS to stop counting black beans and do something to kill the virus of discrimination which is making us all sick. Watch this space for news on my drive to flush the system of the virus and purge the NHS of racism.
If you are an NHS professional and have a personal story of racism or bullying get in touch here



Sunday, 29 July 2012

PRESS RELEASE: Racial Discrimination/Unfair dismissal at New College, Oxford University: Employment Tribunal starts tomorrow.

Press Release  29th July 2012


G F LEWIS v NEW COLLEGE, OXFORD
The Employment Tribunal hearing is on Monday 30th July 2012, Tuesday 31st July 2012, Wednesday 1st August 2012, Thursday 2nd August 2012 and Friday 3rd August 2012 at 10am at Employment Tribunals, 4th Floor, 30/31 Friar Street, Entrance in Merchants Place, Reading, Berkshire RG1 1DY.



 Background:

 I was contacted by a black chef, Gregory Lewis who worked at New College, Oxford University for eight years. He was treated extremely badly and there was clearly racial discrimination involved. The director of the Race Equality Council in Oxford advised him to take a claim to Employment Tribunal, which he did. He was unable to access legal assistance. Gregory contacted me because he could not understand why the tribunal hearing, which found in New College’s favour, seemed to have been conducted in a way that seemed to practically ignore the evidence they presented, whilst overlooking lies, inconsistencies and a total disregard for equality legislation on the part of New College.


The legal process has been a long drawn out one. Gregory has been suffering from depression and anxiety caused by the racial discrimination he experienced since October 2008 and the stress of legal proceedings has exacerbated his condition.

New College staff blatantly lied under oath during the tribunal hearing last July. The HR Officer had no idea of what the specific duties of Higher Education Establishments were under the RRA (amendment) 2000. There was no monitoring in place to ensure there was no racial discrimination in any of their policies, such as disciplinary action, access to training and promotion; the only equal opportunities monitoring with regard to racial group that New College had in place, was a tick box on their application form.

Gregory Lewis had been interviewed for the role of head chef, after being a second chef at Oxford University for twenty years, eight of those at New College. There had never been a black head chef at an Oxford University college. At that time, as second chef, Gregory held the highest position of any black member of staff at New College. (He was acting head chef for over a year). There were no black fellows, tutors or managers. They interviewed Gregory along with other candidates, none of whom were taken on. New College management advised Gregory to go on a course to better his chances of getting the still vacant, head chef’s position. They did not offer him the opportunity to go on this course before the interview, but during cross examination, the catering manager said that he ‘would not have employed anyone who did not have the qualification already ‘unless they were a Jamie Oliver’, so the interview was a farce unless they believed that a black chef might at any time morph into a white TV chef!

While he was away on the course (and still acting head chef as far as he knew), the college took on a new (white) head chef through the back door without even letting Gregory know, totally humiliating him in front of his colleagues. The message was clear: the black man does not deserve any respect. The person they took on had not even made the shortlist for the original interview and had no experience in a university setting.

The original interview notes (received during legal proceedings) made rude comments about Gregory Lewis that were clearly based on racial stereotyping, making him out to have a slave mentality and unable to follow instructions or understand what they were asking of him. This was a chef that had won many awards during his time working at Oxford University colleges and received many compliments in writing from important guests.

New College management embarked on a series of actions designed to intimidate Gregory and force him out of his job. In the end he was too ill to work and they dismissed him on grounds of medical capability.

The judge and lay members at the Employment Tribunal in Reading were dismissive of the evidence given that management had racially stereotyped Gregory, and the judge said that ‘being lazy and stupid is not a stereotype of a black man’. Evidence was provided to show this, but it was ignored. Gregory had a long list of grievances but the tribunal judge and panel skimmed over them and let New College and their representative dictate what was mentioned. When I met him he was mentally and physically exhausted by the whole process and had lost complete faith in the system that was supposed to protect him from racial discrimination. I told him to keep fighting; the truth was on his side and the law was supposed to be as well!

I helped him to set up a campaign to highlight the racial discrimination at Oxford University colleges. This was before David Lammy exposed Oxford University’s appalling record on admitting black students and employing black fellows. We submitted Freedom of Information requests which uncovered the fact that many Oxford colleges were flouting equality laws and were, in some cases, arrogantly unconcerned about it. EHRC, on receiving the information provided by the campaign, wrote to Oxford University’s Vice Chancellor telling him to remind Oxford colleges, which are autonomous, of their duties under equality law.
When Gregory Lewis received the judgement from the Employment Tribunal in writing, he was shocked to find that not only had the judge disregarded what he had said about racial stereotyping, he had substituted his own racial stereotype, saying that he thought he was stereotyped as a black Caribbean man as being ‘laid back to the extreme’!

At the London Employment Appeal Preliminary Hearing, the judge and panel were not impressed that the Reading Employment Tribunal judge and panel, regularly hearing cases of racial discrimination, appeared to have little understanding of racial stereotyping. (The lay members at Reading Employment Tribunal had agreed with the judge that being lazy and stupid was not a racial stereotype of a black man!).The Employment Appeal Tribunal were also concerned that the case appeared to have been tried as an unfair dismissal case with little regard to the racial discrimination side of the case.

I would like to know what training Employment Tribunal judges and lay members have with regard to equal opportunities and race issues. If they are as ignorant on race issues, as those that conducted Gregory Lewis’s case, it is no wonder that so few people are successful in bringing racial discrimination cases against their employer. Employment law is a totally uneven playing field, with claimants having little access to legal assistance and employers like those from Oxford University having unlimited funds to fight their victims. I understand why most of them give up, the threats of costs and the stress is unbearable in a lot of cases.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ordered that the case of Gregory Lewis V New College, Oxford University was subject to a full Appeal Hearing in London. Nothing will change until we insist that the laws against racial discrimination are upheld. Black people suffering racial discrimination at work should not be experiencing it all over again in the Employment Tribunals and courts that are their only recourse.

Judgement of the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
 http://www.employmentcasesupdate.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed10236

Unfortunately, Gregory’s situation is not unfamiliar. I have spoken to many black people, who have experienced similar treatment when applying for promotion. We as a people should be long past the stage where, when trying to progress through hard work and dedication, we are regarded as ‘uppity’ and expected to shuffle our feet, say ‘yes massa’, and be grateful for whatever lowly position these institutionally racist employers decide we are good enough for.

Victory at Employment Appeal Tribunal Hearing

The hearing took place on October 14th 2011. The judge in the original Employment Tribunal hearing made submissions for the appeal which included this statement regarding racial stereotyping:

‘It was, of course, the Claimant and his representative who raised the question of “stereotypical” views of Black Caribbean males. I still do not believe that there is a stereotypical view of Black Caribbean males being “lazy and stupid”. They may have a more “relaxed” approach to life than other ethnic groups but that is not in any way a derogatory assessment and in any event was not in reality a relevant feature in this case. The Tribunal was unanimously satisfied that the Respondent’s assessment of the Claimant was as identified of paragraph 51 of the Written Reasons which related purely to the assessment of the Claimant as an individual and was not based on any stereotypical view of male Caribbeans’. (Judge Coles)


The EAT judgement (MR G F LEWIS v NEW COLLEGE OXFORD) says: ‘We agree with Ms Robinson (acting for Gregory Lewis on behalf of the Bar Pro Bono Unit and only instructed on the morning of the hearing) that here the judge has at least given the appearance of holding a stereotypical view, in that he takes a view that a more relaxed approach to life is exhibited by Black Caribbean males, than by other groups. In our judgment, that is inappropriate. It is put as an allegation of actual bias but we prefer to regard it, and we uphold it, as being an allegation of apparent bias.

Given that there was evidence as to stereotypes, it ought to have been dealt with and not been the substitution of a view by the judge. The matter which worried Judge Hand’s division of this Tribunal was the finding by the judge and Mr Cameron in their subsequent comments, that there was no such attitude towards Black Caribbean men in this country, a view which surprised very much the lay members in Judge Hand’s division and Judge Hand too.

In that respect, it is a matter that we too might have a view about. Since there is no challenge before us to the evidence which Ms Ruskin (Gregory Lewis’s partner who represented him at the Employment Tribunal) says she put before the Tribunal as to a divergent view of two universities (we have not seen it), we consider that there would have been substance in her submission and it was not fair for the Tribunal to form such a view.’

Smugness and Superiority exhibited by New College Oxford management: Snobbery or racism?

From the EAT judgement: ‘Further, we consider there is substance in Ms Robinson’s point that given that at least Mr Cameron considered that the witness team from New College was smug and superior, that should have been a matter which was dealt with in the Judgment in accordance with its duty to make inferences. Were they smug and superior because they were above a mere chef? Or was it anything to do with the fact that he was Black Caribbean?’

(In fact Judge Coles said in his written comments to the EAT that: ‘I note that in the comments from the member Mr Cameron he refers to the facial expressions of the University witnesses and observers potentially being described as having ‘an air of being smug and superior’ and that was certainly a perception which all members of the tribunal reached’).

‘Particularly in the light of what Ms Robinson contends is a highly dismissive superior and arrogant approach by Dr Parrott in responding to the Claimant when he raised the issue of what “Mr Pangloss” meant.’(A comment made by Dr Parrott about Gregory Lewis during his interview). ‘The don was to produce a three-page essay which had some unfortunate epithets about stupidity and malice. Irony was not what was called for. The Tribunal ought to have decided these matters in relation to whether or not there was any race discrimination involved in the decision to dismiss in the light of all that material.’

‘As a matter of law, the Claimant is entitled to a fair hearing by three persons who all have an open mind and who make decisions on the basis of what they hear together. If one of them does not meet that test, then the decision must be set aside.’


The decision of the original tribunal has been set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted panel at the Employment Tribunal.


Lee Jasper

Campaign For Racial Equality at Oxford University


Gregory Lewis, gregorylewis3764@yahoo.co.uk
Lee Jasper, lee-jasper@live.com
 
Press Release on behalf of Lee Jasper and The Campaign for Racial Equality at Oxford University.
Gregory Lewis: worked as a chef in Oxford University kitchens for 18 years
Racism: Oxford University students 'blacked up' for a  'bop'

Lee Jasper: human rights and equality campaigner




Gregory Lewis, left, with the Reverend Jesse Jackson who has spoken out about the lack of black students at Oxford.



Press coverage
 
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/chef-takes-might-oxford
 
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/date-set-oxford-chef-race-case
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068076/Oxford-university-professor-accused-racial-discrimination.html
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8926213/Oxford-dons-Voltaire-reference-at-heart-of-race-discrimination-case.html
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/22/hugh-muir-diary-richard-ottaway
The Voice have been extremely accurate in their coverage of this case, it is much appreciated.

Monday, 21 November 2011

PRESS RELEASE: Racial Discrimination at New College, Oxford University & in the Employment Tribunal

Press Release on behalf of Lee Jasper
and The Campaign for Racial Equality at Oxford University.
http://racialdiscriminationnewcollegeoxf.blogspot.com/


 Please contact
Lee Jasper, lee-jasper@live.com
Gregory Lewis, gregorylewis3764@yahoo.co.uk





Gregory Lewis left, meeting the Reverend Jesse Jackson Snr
Last year I was contacted by a black chef, Gregory Lewis who worked at New College, Oxford University for eight years. He was treated extremely badly and there was clearly racial discrimination involved.  The director of the Race Equality Council in Oxford advised him to take a claim to Employment Tribunal, which he did.  He was unable to access legal assistance. Gregory contacted me because he could not understand why the tribunal hearing, which found in New College’s favour, seemed to have been conducted in a way that seemed to practically ignore the evidence they presented, whilst overlooking lies, inconsistencies and a total disregard for equality legislation on the part of New College.
The legal process has been a long drawn out one. Gregory has been suffering from depression and anxiety caused by the racial discrimination he experienced since October 2008 and the stress of legal proceedings has exacerbated his condition. 
New College staff blatantly lied under oath during the tribunal hearing last July. The HR Officer had no idea of what the specific duties of Higher Education Establishments were under the RRA (amendment) 2000. There was no monitoring in place to ensure there was no racial discrimination in any of their policies, such as disciplinary action, access to training and promotion; the only equal opportunities monitoring with regard to racial group that New College had in place, was a tick box on their application form. 
Gregory Lewis had been interviewed for the role of head chef, after being a second chef at Oxford University for twenty years, eight of those at New College.  There had never been a black head chef at an Oxford University college. At that time, as second chef, Gregory held the highest position of any black member of staff at New College. (He was acting head chef for over a year).  There were no black fellows, tutors or managers. They interviewed Gregory along with other candidates, none of whom were taken on. New College management advised Gregory to go on a course to better his chances of getting the still vacant, head chef’s position.  They did not offer him the opportunity to go on this course before the interview, but during cross examination, the catering manager said that he ‘would not have employed anyone who did not have the qualification already ‘unless they were a Jamie Oliver’, so the interview was a farce unless they believed that a black chef might at any time morph into a white TV chef!
While he was away on the course (and still acting head chef as far as he knew), the college took on a new (white) head chef through the back door without even letting Gregory know, totally humiliating him in front of his colleagues. The message was clear: the black man does not deserve any respect.  The person they took on had not even made the shortlist for the original interview and had no experience in a university setting.
 The original interview notes (received during legal proceedings) made rude comments about Gregory Lewis that were clearly based on racial stereotyping, making him out to have a slave mentality and unable to follow instructions or understand what they were asking of him. This was a chef that had won many awards during his time working at Oxford University colleges and received many compliments in writing from important guests.
New College management embarked on a series of actions designed to intimidate Gregory and force him out of his job. In the end he was too ill to work and they dismissed him on grounds of medical capability.
The judge and lay members at the Employment Tribunal in Reading were dismissive of the evidence given that management had racially stereotyped Gregory, and the judge said that ‘being lazy and stupid is not a stereotype of a black man’. Evidence was provided to show this, but it was ignored. Gregory had a long list of grievances but the tribunal judge and panel skimmed over them and let New College and their representative dictate what was mentioned.  When I met him he was mentally and physically exhausted by the whole process and had lost complete faith in the system that was supposed to protect him from racial discrimination. I told him to keep fighting; the truth was on his side and the law was supposed to be as well! 
I helped him to set up a campaign to highlight the racial discrimination at Oxford University colleges. This was before David Lammy exposed Oxford University’s appalling record on admitting black students and employing black fellows.  We submitted Freedom of Information requests which uncovered the fact that many Oxford colleges were flouting equality laws and were, in some cases, arrogantly unconcerned about it.  EHRC, on receiving the information provided by the campaign, wrote to Oxford University’s Vice Chancellor telling him to remind Oxford colleges, which are autonomous, of their duties under equality law.
When Gregory Lewis received the judgement from the Employment Tribunal in writing, he was shocked to find that not only had the judge disregarded what he had said about racial stereotyping, he had substituted his own racial stereotype, saying that he thought he was stereotyped as a black Caribbean man as being ‘laid back to the extreme’!
At the London Employment Appeal Preliminary Hearing, the judge and panel were not impressed that the Reading Employment Tribunal judge and panel, regularly hearing cases of racial discrimination, appeared to have little understanding of racial stereotyping. (The lay members at Reading Employment Tribunal had agreed with the judge that being lazy and stupid was not a racial stereotype of a black man!).The Employment Appeal Tribunal were also concerned that the case appeared to have been tried as an unfair dismissal case with little regard to the racial discrimination side of the case.
I would like to know what training Employment Tribunal judges and lay members have with regard to equal opportunities and race issues. If they are as ignorant on race issues, as those that conducted Gregory Lewis’s case, it is no wonder that so few people are successful in bringing racial discrimination cases against their employer.  Employment law is a totally uneven playing field, with claimants having little access to legal assistance and employers like those from Oxford University having unlimited funds to fight their victims.  I understand why most of them give up, the threats of costs and the stress is unbearable in a lot of cases. 
The Employment Appeal Tribunal ordered that the case of Gregory Lewis V New College, Oxford University was subject to a full Appeal Hearing in London.  Nothing will change until we insist that the laws against racial discrimination are upheld. Black people suffering racial discrimination at work should not be experiencing it all over again in the Employment Tribunals and courts that are their only recourse. 
Unfortunately, Gregory’s situation is not unfamiliar.  I have spoken to many black people, who have experienced similar treatment when applying for promotion. We as a people should be long past the stage where, when trying to progress through hard work and dedication, we are regarded as ‘uppity’ and expected to shuffle our feet, say ‘yes massa’, and be grateful for whatever lowly position these institutionally racist employers decide we are good enough for.
Victory at Employment Appeal Tribunal Hearing
The hearing took place on October 14th 2011. The judge in the original Employment Tribunal hearing made submissions for the appeal which included this statement regarding racial stereotyping:
It was, of course, the Claimant and his representative who raised the question of “stereotypical” views of Black Caribbean males.  I still do not believe that there is a stereotypical view of Black Caribbean males being “lazy and stupid”.  They may have a more “relaxed” approach to life than other ethnic groups but that is not in any way a derogatory assessment and in any event was not in reality a relevant feature in this case.  The Tribunal was unanimously satisfied that the Respondent’s assessment of the Claimant was as identified of paragraph 51 of the Written Reasons which related purely to the assessment of the Claimant as an individual and was not based on any stereotypical view of male Caribbeans’.  (Judge Coles)

The EAT judgement (MR G F LEWIS v NEW COLLEGE OXFORD) says: ‘We agree with Ms Robinson (acting for Gregory Lewis on behalf of the Bar Pro Bono Unit and only instructed on the morning of the hearing) that here the judge has at least given the appearance of holding a stereotypical view, in that he takes a view that a more relaxed approach to life is exhibited by Black Caribbean males, than by other groups.  In our judgment, that is inappropriate.  It is put as an allegation of actual bias but we prefer to regard it, and we uphold it, as being an allegation of apparent bias.
Given that there was evidence as to stereotypes, it ought to have been dealt with and not been the substitution of a view by the judge.  The matter which worried Judge Hand’s division of this Tribunal was the finding by the judge and Mr Cameron in their subsequent comments, that there was no such attitude towards Black Caribbean men in this country, a view which surprised very much the lay members in Judge Hand’s division and Judge Hand too.
In that respect, it is a matter that we too might have a view about.  Since there is no challenge before us to the evidence which Ms Ruskin (Gregory Lewis’s partner who represented him at the Employment Tribunal) says she put before the Tribunal as to a divergent view of two universities (we have not seen it), we consider that there would have been substance in her submission and it was not fair for the Tribunal to form such a view.’

Smugness and Superiority exhibited by New College Oxford management: Snobbery or racism?

From the EAT judgement: ‘Further, we consider there is substance in Ms Robinson’s point that given that at least Mr Cameron considered that the witness team from New College was smug and superior, that should have been a matter which was dealt with in the Judgment in accordance with its duty to make inferences.  Were they smug and superior because they were above a mere chef?  Or was it anything to do with the fact that he was Black Caribbean?’
(In fact Judge Coles said in his written comments to the EAT that: ‘I note that in the comments from the member Mr Cameron he refers to the facial expressions of the University witnesses and observers potentially being described as having ‘an air of being smug and superior’ and that was certainly a perception which all members of the tribunal reached’).
‘Particularly in the light of what Ms Robinson contends is a highly dismissive superior and arrogant approach by Dr Parrott in responding to the Claimant when he raised the issue of what “Mr Pangloss” meant.’(A comment made by Dr Parrott about Gregory Lewis during his interview).  ‘The don was to produce a three-page essay which had some unfortunate epithets about stupidity and malice.  Irony was not what was called for.  The Tribunal ought to have decided these matters in relation to whether or not there was any race discrimination involved in the decision to dismiss in the light of all that material.’
‘As a matter of law, the Claimant is entitled to a fair hearing by three persons who all have an open mind and who make decisions on the basis of what they hear together. If one of them does not meet that test, then the decision must be set aside.’

The decision of the original tribunal has been set aside and remitted to a freshly constituted panel at the Employment Tribunal.


 Lee Jasper
Campaign For Racial Equality at Oxford University

UPDATE: The Employment Tribunal hearing will be on Monday 30th July 2012, Tuesday 31st July 2012, Wednesday 1st August 2012, Thursday 2nd August 2012 and Friday 3rd August 2012 at 10am at Employment Tribunals, 4th Floor, 30/31 Friar Street, Entrance in Merchants Place, Reading, Berkshire RG1 1DY.

 
G Lewis speaking at the Black Student's Campaign Conference (far right)
Gregory Lewis
Lee Jasper
Lee Jasper

PRESS RELEASE: Racial Discrimination at New College, Oxford University & in the Employment Tribunal
G Lewis speaking at the Black Student's Campaign Conference




Wednesday, 31 August 2011

The Ministry of Justice or dystopian fiction?


Olivea Ebanks
Olivea Ebanks (picture by BBC)
When I think about justice or better still ‘the quality of being just’ a number of obvious things come to mind: balance, proportionality, fairness, impartiality. Yet try as I might when I consider the case of Olivea Ebanks and the restrictions placed on her book ‘Almost British,’ I find it impossible to apply these terms. By way of background ‘Almost British’ is about the events that led up to Ms Ebanks representing herself in court for 15 days alleging direct racial discrimination, harassment on racial grounds and victimisation. She won rulings across each area of discrimination against the prison service and named perpetrators and was awarded compensation for their breaches of discrimination law. The book revolves around incidents as recorded in the witness statement Ms Ebanks presented to court, the evidence presented by the prison service, the judgement and its aftermath. ‘Almost British’ covers the experiences that contributed to Ms Ebanks’ feelings of harassment and victimisation. The book is quite detailed and contains excerpts from emails presented to court by both sides and her personal diary. Additionally her book looks at her heritage as a black woman with Caribbean and African roots. The ideology behind slavery is touched upon and considerations about the legacy of slavery after abolition. There are reflections and musings about her childhood, education, husband, parents and siblings, and her Christian faith. 

Ms Ebanks additionally refers to the racist murders of Stephen Lawrence and Zahid Mubarek, and records personal and community reactions to those tragic deaths. She goes on to capture some of the experiences of her friends and the racism and differential treatment they’ve encountered. In summary, ‘Almost British’ is Ms Ebanks’ personal account of racism in Britain and she shares the experiences of the racism that she was exposed to whilst working for the prison service as one of the platforms for discussion.

It is against this backdrop of complex emotions, facts and historical record that the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has imposed restrictions claiming that “Ms Ebanks' book is unbalanced and misleading” (the Voice online19 July written by Merrisa Richards). The MoJ argument goes on to proffer that “Ms Ebanks' claims were misconceived and the tribunal upheld only four of her thirty-seven complaints. All four of those matters were found to be isolated acts by individuals in which no malice was intended.”

Let’s take these points in turn starting with the question of ‘balance’. Firstly, to put things into perspective we should look closely at who is talking about balance. In August 2000 Martin Narey was the Director General for the prison service and he described the organisation as “institutionally racist” (The Independent, Ian Burrell 21 Aug).  By 2005 with regard to the Zahid Mubarek racist murder he described Feltham prison as “institutionally racist” (The Telegraph, Sally Pook 8 Feb). In 2010 the Prison Reform Trust reported that “for many [BME prisoners], racism occurs frequently in prison. Whether among prisoners, or between prisoners and staff; over a third said that racist incidents happen often or everyday” (PRT, ‘A Fair Response’ 2010). It is a well documented fact that the prison service as an agency of MoJ is predominately white and male; the MoJ Equality Schemes Annual Review 2009–2010 reported that only 4.64% BAME people were in senior civil service positions. Whilst the prison service as an agency of MoJ has suggested that there is improvement in the world of race relations, they have not yet been able to definitively say that they are no longer institutionally racist. What we have then, with regard to the question of ‘balance’ is an organisation that is still institutionally racist, predominately white and male determined to put themselves forward as the authority on whether or not a black female perspective and experience of racism is balanced.

I am turning my attention now to the statement that Ms Ebanks claims were “misconceived” because only 4 of her 37 complaints were upheld. It is a shame that the MoJ’s best defence seems only to be to play the numbers game, but having spoken to her husband Mr Rudy Ebanks, he assures me that his wife simply did as instructed. Apparently she was attempting to show an overall picture of harassment over a period of 2 years. In order to do this she was advised to detail and link every occurrence she felt would demonstrate an ongoing campaign of abuse. Had she been advised that she should instead focus on the aspects on which she felt were the strongest elements of her case to secure a judgment of discrimination on racial grounds, that’s what she would have done. Mr Ebanks is especially keen for us to remember that his wife is not a lawyer and that she had never before presented evidence to court nor does she have the experience of collating evidence in a way to withstand the scrutiny of interrogation and law. He is very angry that MoJ is using the issue of numbers to diminish the fact that they were found to be racist and instead are making his wife out to be reactionary and prone to complain about everything.

I move on to the MoJ’s apparent capacity to judge the intents of a person’s heart with the view that no malice was intended. My questions are, if no malice was intended why didn’t the discrimination stop after one incident, and why did the 4 rulings (covering 5 acts of discrimination) span 2 years, despite Ms Ebanks raising internal grievances asking for the differential treatment to stop after the first incident? These are good questions, but it seems no one from the MoJ is available to comment.

I come back to my original considerations about ‘justice’ and proportionality. Ms Ebanks went to a public hearing and disclosed what she felt to be wrongdoing. She named individuals as perpetrators of the discrimination law. The Tribunal made some findings in her favour meaning that HMPS (as it was then known) and 3 individuals were judged to have failed in their obligations to uphold the law whilst executing their public duty. Ms Ebanks has since gone on to exercise her right to tell her story and is being refused permission to publish. This is where it all gets a little confusing. How can the MoJ refuse permission to publish something that is already published? I note that the article in the Voice is generating much interest as people are still adding their comments. The responses are overwhelmingly positive and seem to be generated by people who have read the book. When I spoke to Mr Ebanks he was adamant that the Judicial College where his wife works gave her legitimate expectation to publish. He said “Liv went to see her managers who are judges and lawyers before the book was published. They congratulated her and told her to let the press office know what she was doing. A circuit judge, and two senior civil servants were told about the local publicity she had planned and they were fine about everything. In fact Liv was so motivated by their positive responses that she sent the manuscript to the publishers the very next day. We were both on a high after her managers told her how impressed they were with her. Then two weeks later they called her when we were on holiday and said that she hadn’t got permission to publish, that she was to stop everything or face disciplinary action. It was a complete about turn and by then it was too late because the book was out.” Mr Ebanks claims that the Judicial College (which incidentally is also an agency of MoJ) has since gone on to discipline his wife for gross misconduct, told her not to reprint, distribute or promote her book and she is under treat of dismissal for any further misconduct. “They even wrote to her in May [this year], telling her to tell me to cease my activities on FaceBook regarding her story,” Mr Ebanks continued, “--not satisfied with harassing my wife, they’re now bullying her to bully me! Who do they think they are?”

Having read this particular letter it does feel like something out of George Orwell’s novel 1984 which describes a society ruled by an oligarchical dictatorship. Orwell’s book talks about the ‘Ministry of Truth’ rewriting history in order to show themselves as always correct. The MoJ letter that has so infuriated Mr Ebanks claims that his actions if allowed to continue effectively bypass the prohibition that applies to Ms Ebanks. When I read this I was indeed transported to a place where totalitarianism is the goal and controlling and subjugating people the means to achieving it.

I have tried yet I cannot see the behaviour of the MoJ as impartial or proportionate. I cannot see how the MoJ having had the opportunity to tell Ms Ebanks not to publish, instead chose to praise her for her efforts, can then turn around and make Ms Ebanks out to be some sort of reckless militant, flying in the face of her employee obligations. If Mr Ebanks is to be believed and as the person closest to Ms Ebanks I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, all is not as MoJ would have us believe.

The more I look into this – the more questions I have. Why is MoJ wasting time and money in these austere times, to stop a book that is already published and clearly being read by the nation? I am in no doubt that had Ms Ebanks actually broken the law or any civil service protocols they would have had grounds to dismiss her, so why haven’t they? Why have they instead chosen to discipline her for something they initially had no problems with and then proceeded to gag her without recalling the book? It seems that proportionality has given way to clumsiness and heavy-handedness; perhaps something more sinister is afoot.
Having got hold of my copy of ‘Almost British’ very early on I find that Ms Ebanks has perhaps touched a few nerves and made some connections and disclosures that perhaps the MoJ would rather we remained ignorant of. Whilst she has not shared anything material to her key point that is not readily available from multiple sources, what she has done is conveniently put such information in one place.

Firstly and most importantly Ms Ebanks’ win at Tribunal successfully widens the debate about racism only emanating from prison officers towards prisoners, to include racism in the senior management grades of the prison service. This is historically and politically significant. Up until now racism has been relegated to the officer ranks and between prisoners themselves but now we have proof that the leadership of the prison service have had allegations of racism about them upheld.

Another point raised by Ms Ebanks’ book is she quite rightly drives home the fact that racism does not respect boundaries; one cannot simply suggest it is in one part of an organisation and not in another – racist officers after all (however few and far between) have opportunity to become managers. The book juxtaposes the rhetoric of MoJ officials in their steps to eliminate racism with the actual increases in disproportionate outcomes for black prisoners. In so doing we get an uncompromising and unadulterated glimpse of prisoner treatment that is both worrying and disappointing.

One of the most illuminating aspects of Ms Ebanks’ book is that she gives covert racism a face. We get to see its many dimensions and nuances. We get to see how MoJ policies presumably drafted to help the victim are used to frustrate her efforts at securing a fair and equitable outcome. We get to see how an institution can relentlessly bear down on a single unrepresented person having offered no more than a toothless staff care-and-welfare resource as a way of discharging their duty of care to her.

MoJ says (the Voice online) "We take all allegations of harassment or discrimination very seriously...” yet they conveniently say nothing about what they do with actual real-life judgments proving harassment, victimisation and discrimination as made against them in the Tribunal Reserved judgment dated 14 April 2008. It seems even now in 2011 they are loath to accept that the situation has moved beyond ‘allegations’ to legally binding authoritative judgment.

I wonder if MoJ would be less prickly if ‘Almost British’ could be dismissed as a rambling stream of consciousness and the ravings of a mad black woman. If the book could be dispensed with so easily it would certainly be less of a threat. Fortunately for us it is none of those things. It is intelligently written and quotes MoJ’s facts and statistics back at them whilst asking for explanations for inaction and squarely concludes that the progress made is nothing to boast about. Furthermore, Ms Ebanks’ book is endorsed by Doreen Lawrence OBE, mother of the murdered teenager Stephen Lawrence. Of the book Ms Lawrence says, “I found Olivea’s story disturbing. I found it difficult to believe that things have not moved on enough to enable black employees to be respected and valued...” No one has yet been convicted of the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence. Eighteen years of campaigning have finally yielded the result that two men are to stand trial in November this year. What is especially poignant is that in the midst of this long and torturous journey, Doreen Lawrence took the time to read ‘Almost British’ and lend her support confirming that this is not a book to be ignored.

It took a lot of courage to do what Ms Ebanks did. She risked her reputation, her employment in a senior position, and then at further peril went on to share her highs and lows to encourage others. And after such forfeit, the Ministry of Justice still thinks all that really happened was Ms Ebanks mostly made allegations that were not substantiated at Tribunal. Because, in her book she is of the view that she can still claim victory the MoJ state her views are “unbalanced and misleading”. What is particularly interesting is that the managers and colleagues who were found guilty of racial discrimination in 2008 were never formally sanctioned yet today it appears that Ms Ebanks has a final written warning for gross misconduct on her otherwise untarnished work record because she thought she had freedom of speech even as a civil servant. Where is the justice in that?

‘Almost British’ is unique and difficult to classify as an autobiography or memoir. It does not sit easily in any genre since it is not a victim piece, it is not purely her opinion; it is evidential and academically structured. Moreover unlike Trevor Phillips’ assertions in February 2009 (chair of Equalities and Human Rights Commission), that “institutional racism as a phrase is a blunt instrument and unhelpful” Ms Ebanks’ story at the very least poses the question that institutional racism has not dissipated; it has simply morphed into something more sophisticated.  This is a timely piece, written with urgency at its core to avert another death in custody.  Its topical nature is one that is generating public interest and the parallels drawn in it should be used to stoke the fires of institutional reform. Everybody wins when equal treatment is more than well-meaning public statements.

In the words of William Wells Brown, a prominent African-American abolitionist, lecturer, novelist, playwright, and historian, born into slavery, All I demand for the black man is, that the white people shall take their heels off his neck, and let him have a chance to rise by his own efforts.The MoJ needs to take its foot of Ms Ebanks’ neck. She has suffered enough and deserves to be heard. They have had their say, now it’s time for Ms Ebanks to have hers.

Lee Jasper