The claimant is a firefighter who was employed by the first respondent.   The second respondent was the Assistant Chief Fire Officer.   The issue in this case arose on foot of the claimant’s resignation in August 2012 which he then regretted and as a result he     contacted the second respondent seeking assistance.  The first respondent then required the second respondent to consider the request to withdraw the resignation.   The second respondent, advised that the request should not be acceded to and the claimant was informed of this on 31st August 2012.  After demonstrating his unhappiness, the claimant was later offered employment again with the first respondent.  This was taken up on 31st December 2012.

He accepted this position, yet the lack of continuous service meant that he was in the 2006 Pension Scheme which was less valuable than the 1992 Scheme he was previously a member of.   This continued to be an issue despite remaining in the employment of the first respondent.  In August 2019, the claimant was provided with emails from the 2012 request to withdraw the resignation.   His claim was based upon discrimination by virtue of those emails on the basis of religion considering he had converted to Islam in 2011 and race, by association, as his wife was of Pakistani national origin.

In terms of the initial request, the claimant outlined that there had been familial issues as a result of the mixed-race marriage as well as other considerations at the time.   This was made known and the issues brought up in the claim further to an email sent in August 2012 which referred to continuing issues which may arise due to ‘personal circumstances’ and the ‘relationship’.   The claimant argued that the use of ‘relationship’ demeaned his marriage, yet the Tribunal did not accept this.    On the issue of personal circumstances, the claimant argued that this related to his mixed-race marriage and the fact he had converted to Islam.  The Tribunal found that these considerations were only mentioned because they had been expressly referred to by the claimant.

The claimant did outline two comparators who had been transferred and had retained the same pension rights.   It was held by the Tribunal that these comparators were not appropriate and were completely different circumstances.  Instead, the Tribunal referred to a hypothetical comparator based upon an individual who was in a marriage with someone of the same race or not married at all.   It was held that this hypothetical comparator would have been treated in the same way.  Accordingly, the claims were dismissed.

Practical Lessons 

This case, in some ways, demonstrates how easily situations of discrimination can arise within the workplace.  The issue was the use of vague language in emails and how it could be construed.   The use of comparators was quite difficult in this case, but it was held that as the decision not to allow the request was based upon the work-related factors relating to the claimant and not his marriage then there was no issue of discrimination.  Accordingly, when there is a case of a resignation being revoked then the consideration of that request should be examined in a fair an open manner.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-wiswell-v-greater-manchester-fire-and-rescue-and-tony-hunter-2416809-slash-2019