Southern Water worker whose signature was ‘forged’ was discriminated against, tribunal rules
.png "Southern Water worker whose signature was ‘forged’ was discriminated against, tribunal rules")
A carbon data analyst at Southern Water has had his claims of race harassment and discrimination upheld after the tribunal found his electronic signature was “added to” a performance improvement plan (PIP) review document without his knowledge.
The Bristol tribunal heard that Mr O Hamouda’s direct line manager, Ms Noguera, submitted “untruthful and misleading” feedback about him to HR after he was investigated for working from South Sudan without permission from her.
Employment judge Gray-Jones could not find evidence of Noguera’s claims that he was “rude and aggressive”, and that “the material being supplied to HR was not truthful and was misleading”, which amounted to harassment as a result of his race.
Race discrimination claims: why the bigger picture matters
Lessons from case law on race discrimination
Discrimination and harassment changes: implications for employers
He also said that the forgery of his electronic signature gave “cause for concern” about Southern Water’s evidence.
Other claims of harassment and discrimination were dismissed.
Background
The tribunal heard that Hamouda – who describes himself as Black – was employed by Southern Water Services as a carbon data analyst on 1 August 2022, until his resignation on 8 January 2024. He spent the “majority of his time” working remotely.
The tribunal found that in September 2022 Noguera – who was eventually involved in later disciplinary proceedings – had a “negative view” of Hamouda and was so “concerned” about his performance that she felt he was not “the right person” for the role.
On 9 January 2023, Hamouda travelled to South Sudan to attend a funeral with the intent of working remotely but did not inform anyone of his intentions or the bereavement.
When he logged on to work the next day, IT flagged the laptop as being in a “potential high-risk location” and disabled his access – despite him eventually telling Noguera that he was working remotely from South Sudan.
On 6 February, according to the evidence bundle, several emails were sent between Noguera, other colleagues and HR with the subject ‘Investigation – misconduct’, stating that they would “collate all information/evidence needed” for the meeting.
Hamouda attended an investigatory meeting on 15 February and confirmed that he failed to inform his manager of his intentions to work from South Sudan.
On 24 March he attended a disciplinary hearing for alleged gross misconduct for unauthorised absence to South Sudan. The tribunal found that Southern Water had an unspoken policy that he needed to inform his manager of working remotely from abroad, but could find “no evidence” that he had been informed of the rule.
On 31 March, Hamouda was issued with a written warning letter for breaching the bereavement leave policy. However, the tribunal found this was “not clear” as the special leave policy said an employee should contact their line manager to request special leave, whereas Hamouda intended to work from South Sudan but was unable to as IT disabled his access.
In June, Noguera emailed several senior colleagues to complain of Hamouda’s attitude to her, chiefly that his emails to her were “rude and disrespectful”, and that it was having a negative impact on her mental health.
The tribunal did not consider that the emails could be seen as rude or disrespectful, and that Noguera had a “hostile view” of Hamouda. Other colleagues in cross examination said the relationship between the pair had “broken down” but made no attempt to mediate or resolve this.
Noguera took advice from HR and, on 3 August, Hamouda remotely attended an informal performance meeting, which dealt purely with performance and not behaviour concerns.
The tribunal said the behaviour concerns were the “real reason” for her negative view of him and that the “perception” of his performance that led to the performance review was “derived entirely” from Noguera’s “perception of his performance”. No evidence of reviews, weekly meetings or training were found.
Hamouda claimed that his electronic signature – in the form of his name typed out – was forged on the performance review document. The tribunal was “satisfied” that this was the case as Southern Water could not provide the email proving the document was sent to him to review and approve.
Judge Gray-Jones said this was the “only way” it could have been signed by Hamouda in a remote setting, and concluded that his signature was “added by [Noguera] or somebody in [Southern Water’s] HR department”. He said this gave “cause for concern” about Noguera and Southern Water’s evidence “generally”.
This satisfied the tribunal that the performance review was “not being undertaken in good faith” and there was “no intention” for it to be a collaborative and supportive process.
On 5 October a stage one formal meeting was held with Hamouda and Noguera, which resulted in a final written warning, and eventually led to his resignation.
Panel’s ruling
Gray-Jones said the investigation into Hamouda’s travel to South Sudan made what was “essentially” a finding of gross misconduct, without specifying the policy or rule being breached. It reached this conclusion “in relation to a Black employee who had travelled to a country which was clearly associated with his ethnicity”.
The tribunal found that the decision to treat the absence as misconduct appeared to have been taken before the investigation took place, as shown in the emails between Noguera and employees in the HR department.
Ultimately it found that, on the matter of Hamouda working from South Sudan, Southern Water did not provide the “cogent explanation required” and found this was direct discrimination because of the protected characteristic of race by seeking to dismiss him.
The tribunal also found that Noguera submitted “untruthful and misleading” feedback about Hamouda to HR, which resulted in a PIP. She claimed that he was “rude and aggressive” towards her, which formed her “negative view”, but the tribunal could not find “any specific” examples and “did not find the emails” that were alleged to be rude.
Noguera’s concerns about “performance issues” were also only described in “generic terms”, and the tribunal found that “the material being supplied to HR was not truthful and was misleading”, which amounted to harassment as a result of his race.
Additionally, it concluded the PIP itself was unjustified and discriminatory, and the decision to implement it was influenced by Hamouda’s race. It also found that converting the PIP into a formal procedure was “effectively a breach” of PIP procedure, and that the signed outcome letter was “falsely presented as a document which he had signed”.
The tribunal was also satisfied that his resignation was “influenced, at least in part, by the PIP process” and his final written warning.
A remedy hearing will be determined at a later date.
A spokesperson for Southern Water told People Management: “We are committed to providing an inclusive, respectful and supportive workplace for everyone at Southern Water. We recognise the seriousness of the tribunal’s finding that claims relating to racial discrimination and harassment were upheld. We take all such allegations extremely seriously.
“We will be reviewing the tribunal’s findings carefully and considering any lessons we can learn from them. As a further hearing is due to take place to determine remedy, it would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage.”
For guidance on race discrimination in the workplace, visit the CIPD’s knowledge hub