Court rejects authority’s bid to exclude itself as ‘separate entity’ to ALMO
Leeds Council to face ALMO employee race discrimination case
Leeds Council must defend itself against an accusation of workplace racial discrimination brought by an employee of its arm’s-length management organisation, the Court of Appeal has found.
A hearing last month marked the end of the line for the council’s long-running attempt to assert it should not have to answer the case because the ALMO is a separate entity.
Michael Woodhouse, a project manager at West North West Homes in Leeds, alleges he was racially abused by the council’s clerk of works, Malcolm Chapman, between December 2006 and January 2007.
Leeds Council was named alongside the ALMO as the employer in the case, but applied last July to be excluded. All three respondents - the council, ALMO and Mr Chapman - have denied any wrongdoing.
The Court of Appeal judgement means that Mr Woodhouse’s case can now proceed to a full hearing because the council has indicated that it will not pursue further appeals.
The council’s previous appeals were rejected by an Employment Tribunal Hearing in 2008 and the Employment Appeal Tribunal last year.
David Sorensen of Morrish Solicitors, which represents Mr Woodhouse, said the ruling set a precedent which would mean councils would have to take responsibility for staffing issues in ALMOs.
‘It shows that [councils] can’t just ignore ALMO employees when it comes to treatment… if they hear that their employees may have been mistreated then they have to take those complaints seriously and they have to investigate,’ he said. ‘Michael is arguing that the council didn’t do enough.’
Steve Clark from union Unite said the case had dragged on for too long: ‘I don’t know why Leeds Council continues its attempts to block the progress of this case,’ he said. ‘Michael just wants to get it over with and move on, and you’d think the council would too’.
A spokesperson for Leeds Council said: ‘We note the decision of the Court of Appeal and we will now turn our attention to defending the tribunal claim.’
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment
Readers' comments (6)
Claire Sesay | 16/04/2010 9:05 am
I wonder how much public money Leeds City Council have spent trying to wriggle out of their responsibilities as an employer? Money that in this current climate could have been better spent in a number of ways.
At last Michael can have his say and move and we should be proud that there are people that have the courage of their own convictions, who are strong enough to stand up and face their oppressors. In the words of Martin Niemoller, 'When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out'. Michael has spoken out and paved the way for others to have the RIGHT to feel respected and valued at work.
Well done.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
| 16/04/2010 1:59 pm
Irrespective of the merits of the case it is hard to understand why legal officers at Leeds Council made such a challenge in the first place. Case after case, whether it be the right of audience before court issue (ALMO officers have no right of audience, only their local authority parent brethren do) or the Brixen ruling in the EU courts that confirmed that there is no legal difference between a local authority parent and a hived off department, "arms length" or otherwise, an ALMO is just a function of a local authority, as it is the LA that is the legal owner and to which it is fully responsible and accountable to in law. A total waste of taxpayers money on the part of Leeds in challenging this obvious fact.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Peter | 18/04/2010 12:09 pm
I was rather taken back when Leeds CC decided to challenge their responsibility in this case. They should have worked with closely with the ALMO when allegations of race, discrimination, harassment or bullying were being bandied about rather than bury their heads in the sand.
These allegations no matter how frivolous should have been investigated with vigour and addressed accordingly. The consequences of not dealing with these properly are very costly and trust and confidence of the organisation also goes out the window faster than you can say, 'oh dear'!
Is anybody Leeds CC going to taken to task for such expensive lack of judgement?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Supporter of Justice for Michael | 05/05/2010 11:53 pm
I am praying for real, proper justice for Michael. The tribunal needs to make the council chief executive personally accountable. I am sure in the time that they have played this strategic hide and seek people that should be called in to account may have moved on. We tax payers are paying for the arrogance of the council chief executive and officers who failed to deal with this issue years ago. How many times is it that they have used tax payers money to fund this fail from the beginning attempt to extricate themselves from accountability? I fiercely object to my taxes being used in this fashion and yet they are cutting basic services. Michael is only unique in standing up for so long and refusing to let the issue drop. I am positive many more black council workers could recount similar treatment to that which he has suffered. How many more Michaels are there out there? God speed and every success in the tribunal on the 13th! Peter the question that you ask re: Who will take LCC to task? that is the job of ALL of us as tax payers and in the political climate we need to ask what were and are the councillors and MPs doing about this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
john the one | 09/05/2010 9:20 am
Having watched this whole sorry saga for so long, it makes me wonder what on earth the so called senior officer's in both the ALMO and LCC thought they were doing.
I have had to deal with such people myself and I have found that the higher up the tree they are often ties the thicker they are and cannot see wood for trees.
Having known Michael for many years I know what he has gone through and like so many others I look forward to the day when Michael gets the result that he truly deserves.
I also hope the many, many people who suffer in silance in LCC and the ALMO will stand up and be counted, although I do accept they will have a very hard time before they are proven right because of the rotten apples at the top will do all they can to stop them
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
tom smith | 10/05/2010 11:47 am
Hi, i am just appauled by the lack of compassion leeds city council have shown. i dont understand how they are able to play with someone's life for such a long time and then totally try and wash their hands of it. saying that Michael is not employed by the leeds city council. this is complete and utter rubbish, if he is not employed by them then what is he doing there who is paying his wages etc. its all a complete load of rubbish, i believe in order from them to know wriggle out of this hearing they are changing the dates and saying certain member of the council are unavailable to attend. so what if you cant attend you know what if you dont attend the hearing goes ahead anyway. these people will soon make time to fit the hearing into their schedule, i dont care what anyone says people are always able to make time to fit things in.
regardless leeds city council have no backbone and its about time they acknowledged they are in the wrong and did what was right which is to allow MICHAEL TO GET ON WITH HIS LIFE. he has suffered too long and this is an injustice. We live in the 21st century and for people to subject others to this type of treatment is like slavery and i thought that was abolished in this country nearly 100 years ago, so what is going on LCC and ALMO???
I am 100% behind Michael and i pray to god that all will be good for him.good luck!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment