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.'
