Employment tribunal finds military lawyer's dismissal from RAF amounted to unlawful
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Employment tribunal finds military lawyer's dismissal from RAF amounted to unlawful
Victimisation by senior officers.
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/ra...117579.article
A 'high performing and extremely diligent' Royal Air Force lawyer was subject to unlawful victimisation when his commission was terminated, an employment tribunal has found. Wing Commander Allan Steele succeeded in 10 of 15 specific allegations brought against the Ministry of Defence.
Steele, who served in the RAF legal branch between 29 May 2003 to 30 March 2020, brought claims of victimisation relating to his dismissal from the RAF.
The 63-page judgment found Steele was dismissed ‘because of the perceived disruption’ of his complaints of discrimination and victimisation and found the termination of his commission amounted to unlawful victimisation in breach of s27 of the Equality Act 2010.
Employment judge Tobin said the tribunal was ‘particularly concerned’ over the ‘failures’ of the director of legal services, Air Vice-Marshal Jennings, and another officer, named as Group Captain Shearing, to recognise Steele’s protected acts ‘given their legal and human resources experiences, their roles in these events and their seniority’.
Wg Cdr Shearing and AVM Jennings may or may not have seen the claimant’s service complaints and employment tribunal proceedings, but we assess both knew sufficient of these for them (and others) to take against the claimant and subject him to less favourable treatment.’
The judge also identified other RAF officers who victimised Steele who was ‘perceived as disruptive’. He added: ‘Although, we believe, there was a tendency for the claimant to see conspiracies against him, the behaviour of these senior officers was grossly unfair and fuelled that tendency.’
The conduct of an officer named as Group Captain Sanger-Davies 'met the threshold of bullying', the judge found. 'The behaviour was clearly unwanted. It was offensive and intimidating and it was particularly insulting to Wg Cdr Steele. We are not satisfied that Wg Cdr Steele’s shortcomings justified such restrictive practices, particularly as Wg Cdr Steele had been a high performing and extremely diligent officer and solicitor prior to these very recent events.'
According to the judgment, Steele 'was largely oblivious to the disruption his complaints had caused. He was preoccupied with a sense of injustice, and he needed to bring this to his employer’s attention. He had a strong belief in procedures and (in hindsight) naively believed that in pursuing his service complaints the senior echelons of the RAF would sort this out.
‘We do not find him malicious in this approach, just lacking a degree of insight as to the consequences on others of his service complaints.'
Steele, who served in the RAF legal branch between 29 May 2003 to 30 March 2020, brought claims of victimisation relating to his dismissal from the RAF.
The 63-page judgment found Steele was dismissed ‘because of the perceived disruption’ of his complaints of discrimination and victimisation and found the termination of his commission amounted to unlawful victimisation in breach of s27 of the Equality Act 2010.
Employment judge Tobin said the tribunal was ‘particularly concerned’ over the ‘failures’ of the director of legal services, Air Vice-Marshal Jennings, and another officer, named as Group Captain Shearing, to recognise Steele’s protected acts ‘given their legal and human resources experiences, their roles in these events and their seniority’.
Wg Cdr Shearing and AVM Jennings may or may not have seen the claimant’s service complaints and employment tribunal proceedings, but we assess both knew sufficient of these for them (and others) to take against the claimant and subject him to less favourable treatment.’
The judge also identified other RAF officers who victimised Steele who was ‘perceived as disruptive’. He added: ‘Although, we believe, there was a tendency for the claimant to see conspiracies against him, the behaviour of these senior officers was grossly unfair and fuelled that tendency.’
The conduct of an officer named as Group Captain Sanger-Davies 'met the threshold of bullying', the judge found. 'The behaviour was clearly unwanted. It was offensive and intimidating and it was particularly insulting to Wg Cdr Steele. We are not satisfied that Wg Cdr Steele’s shortcomings justified such restrictive practices, particularly as Wg Cdr Steele had been a high performing and extremely diligent officer and solicitor prior to these very recent events.'
According to the judgment, Steele 'was largely oblivious to the disruption his complaints had caused. He was preoccupied with a sense of injustice, and he needed to bring this to his employer’s attention. He had a strong belief in procedures and (in hindsight) naively believed that in pursuing his service complaints the senior echelons of the RAF would sort this out.
‘We do not find him malicious in this approach, just lacking a degree of insight as to the consequences on others of his service complaints.'
I’ve never heard of a claim for discrimination being based on being white, Scottish and christian before.
The ET panel didn’t sound impressed with the testimony from the RAF SOs (“possibly parroted”) and some of the behaviours and failures on their part. Not a very complimentary picture painted of both sides of the proceedings.
The ET panel didn’t sound impressed with the testimony from the RAF SOs (“possibly parroted”) and some of the behaviours and failures on their part. Not a very complimentary picture painted of both sides of the proceedings.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
No he wasn’t. You have the wrong Sanger-Davies. This case refers to his brother, who is a lawyer.
Trust in the RAF Legal Branch?
I'd encourage anyone with the time to cross reference this Employment Tribunal Judgment with the recent Non Statutory Inquiry into RAF Recruiting and Selection. The same names & job positions frequently crop up. Some highlights from the Judge in the ET are:-
I could go on, but I'm sure you all get the gist.
It's really quite astonishing that a judge should choose to admonish the Director of RAF Legal Services so many times. Is AVM Jennings the same Director of Legal Services that changed their position on the legal advice regarding discrimination in RAF Recruitment and Selection?
Irrespective, IMHO, this all builds a fascinating (and highly worrying) picture into the RAF Legal branch. And here's the main point of my concern.
The RAF currently has personnel deployed on Ops all over the world, many of whom have to make life and death decisions relating to Rules of Engagement. The legal basis of these RoE decisions, are underpinned by the advice provided by RAF Legal branch. The Director of RAF Legal Services appears to have had their integrity and ability called into question by a Judge, no less.
Can RAF warfighters honestly now deploy down range, with full trust and confidence in the RAF Legal Branch?
I'd encourage anyone with the time to cross reference this Employment Tribunal Judgment with the recent Non Statutory Inquiry into RAF Recruiting and Selection. The same names & job positions frequently crop up. Some highlights from the Judge in the ET are:-
- 'We were also particularly concerned by the behaviour and failures of AVM Jennings....'
- 'Her report, particularly as it is written by a solicitor and the Head of a Legal Service, is extraordinary. The report presents its contents as a matter of fact, yet there was no separate investigation or evidence set out to justify AVM Jennings recommendations'
- 'It is telling that AVM Jennings finished her report by saying that “without apportioning any blame” her and her colleagues were not leaving so, effectively, the claimant had to go'.
- 'It is inconceivable that given the senior positions of Wg Cdr Shearing and AVM Jennings and their roles in dealing with the claimant that they would not have known about the ACAS Early Conciliation'
- 'The intention of the parties concerned, Gp Capt Sanger-Davies and also AVM Jennings and Air Cdre Sanders and Wg Cdr Shearing were clear. All were involved in this effort to undermine the claimant.'
- 'AVM Jennings demonstrated her hostility by her report of 18 July 2019, which effectively sabotaged the claimant’s career'.
- 'We determine that it is inconceivable that AVM Jennings, as head of the Legal Branch, did not know of...'
It's really quite astonishing that a judge should choose to admonish the Director of RAF Legal Services so many times. Is AVM Jennings the same Director of Legal Services that changed their position on the legal advice regarding discrimination in RAF Recruitment and Selection?
Irrespective, IMHO, this all builds a fascinating (and highly worrying) picture into the RAF Legal branch. And here's the main point of my concern.
The RAF currently has personnel deployed on Ops all over the world, many of whom have to make life and death decisions relating to Rules of Engagement. The legal basis of these RoE decisions, are underpinned by the advice provided by RAF Legal branch. The Director of RAF Legal Services appears to have had their integrity and ability called into question by a Judge, no less.
Can RAF warfighters honestly now deploy down range, with full trust and confidence in the RAF Legal Branch?
The following 4 users liked this post by Typhoondriver:
Trust in the RAF Legal Branch?
I'd encourage anyone with the time to cross reference this Employment Tribunal Judgment with the recent Non Statutory Inquiry into RAF Recruiting and Selection. The same names & job positions frequently crop up. Some highlights from the Judge in the ET are:-
I could go on, but I'm sure you all get the gist.
It's really quite astonishing that a judge should choose to admonish the Director of RAF Legal Services so many times. Is AVM Jennings the same Director of Legal Services that changed their position on the legal advice regarding discrimination in RAF Recruitment and Selection?
Irrespective, IMHO, this all builds a fascinating (and highly worrying) picture into the RAF Legal branch. And here's the main point of my concern.
The RAF currently has personnel deployed on Ops all over the world, many of whom have to make life and death decisions relating to Rules of Engagement. The legal basis of these RoE decisions, are underpinned by the advice provided by RAF Legal branch. The Director of RAF Legal Services appears to have had their integrity and ability called into question by a Judge, no less.
Can RAF warfighters honestly now deploy down range, with full trust and confidence in the RAF Legal Branch?
I'd encourage anyone with the time to cross reference this Employment Tribunal Judgment with the recent Non Statutory Inquiry into RAF Recruiting and Selection. The same names & job positions frequently crop up. Some highlights from the Judge in the ET are:-
- 'We were also particularly concerned by the behaviour and failures of AVM Jennings....'
- 'Her report, particularly as it is written by a solicitor and the Head of a Legal Service, is extraordinary. The report presents its contents as a matter of fact, yet there was no separate investigation or evidence set out to justify AVM Jennings recommendations'
- 'It is telling that AVM Jennings finished her report by saying that “without apportioning any blame” her and her colleagues were not leaving so, effectively, the claimant had to go'.
- 'It is inconceivable that given the senior positions of Wg Cdr Shearing and AVM Jennings and their roles in dealing with the claimant that they would not have known about the ACAS Early Conciliation'
- 'The intention of the parties concerned, Gp Capt Sanger-Davies and also AVM Jennings and Air Cdre Sanders and Wg Cdr Shearing were clear. All were involved in this effort to undermine the claimant.'
- 'AVM Jennings demonstrated her hostility by her report of 18 July 2019, which effectively sabotaged the claimant’s career'.
- 'We determine that it is inconceivable that AVM Jennings, as head of the Legal Branch, did not know of...'
It's really quite astonishing that a judge should choose to admonish the Director of RAF Legal Services so many times. Is AVM Jennings the same Director of Legal Services that changed their position on the legal advice regarding discrimination in RAF Recruitment and Selection?
Irrespective, IMHO, this all builds a fascinating (and highly worrying) picture into the RAF Legal branch. And here's the main point of my concern.
The RAF currently has personnel deployed on Ops all over the world, many of whom have to make life and death decisions relating to Rules of Engagement. The legal basis of these RoE decisions, are underpinned by the advice provided by RAF Legal branch. The Director of RAF Legal Services appears to have had their integrity and ability called into question by a Judge, no less.
Can RAF warfighters honestly now deploy down range, with full trust and confidence in the RAF Legal Branch?
I’d offer there’s a broader problem than just the legal branch…
The following 6 users liked this post by alfred_the_great:
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
Some people in the ‘modern’ RAF promoted beyond their level of competence?
And so many Air Officers … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...oyal_Air_Force
Have another DLS … last para ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Irvine
And so many Air Officers … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...oyal_Air_Force
Have another DLS … last para ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Irvine
Last edited by MPN11; 19th Oct 2023 at 18:45.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
I see on the wiki link it has already been amended.
So will anything happen to those branded as liars?
Does this leave it open for him to now sue for damages? Bullying, Reputation, loss of earnings, career, full pension etc
In 2023 an employment tribunal concluded that Air Vice Marshal Tamara Jennings OBE had effectively 'sabotaged' RAF Wing Commander Allan Steele's career by concluding in July 2019 that he could not serve in the Legal Branch any more due to a breakdown in relations with other officers
Does this leave it open for him to now sue for damages? Bullying, Reputation, loss of earnings, career, full pension etc
New to this. Appalled.
Quote:
he could not serve in the Legal Branch any more due to a breakdown in relations with other officers.
What has this to do with the price of fish? I served with, under and over total w%nkers and had crap relations with a fair few. It had nothing to do with getting on with the job, for which we were judged professionally as competent or otherwise. Being liked or difficult is part of life's rich tapestry.
Surely the leadership of the legal eagles has been damned by their peers and seniors. Time to go.
Quote:
he could not serve in the Legal Branch any more due to a breakdown in relations with other officers.
What has this to do with the price of fish? I served with, under and over total w%nkers and had crap relations with a fair few. It had nothing to do with getting on with the job, for which we were judged professionally as competent or otherwise. Being liked or difficult is part of life's rich tapestry.
Surely the leadership of the legal eagles has been damned by their peers and seniors. Time to go.
As I understand it, a “breakdown in relations” between an individual and their employer implies that the employee no longer recognizes or subscribes to the guidance and management of the employer, line management or disciplinary process.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
The Airforce Board were not made aware of his suggestions that he could serve in other branches away from law, even though he had expressed interest in doing so. That would have avoided any further problems
no it means one or both of them is behaving properly and listening to the other with an open mind