Bus Company Unfairly Withdrew Job Offer, Tribunal Rules
The EAT ruled Transport UK London Bus Ltd unfairly withdrew a job offer based on a belief the candidate might make future discrimination claims. Original victimisation finding reinstated.
• public
Bus Firm Found to Have Victimized Job Applicant
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has overturned a reconsideration decision, ruling that Transport UK London Bus Ltd (formerly Abellio London Limited) unfairly withdrew a job offer from Mr. Jamshid Aslam. The EAT found that the initial Employment Tribunal (ET) was correct in its original assessment that the bus company had victimised Mr. Aslam.
Background of the Case
Mr. Aslam, who had previously been employed by Metroline, applied for a job with Transport UK London Bus Ltd in April 2019. During the interview process, he disclosed that he had been dismissed by Metroline and was pursuing a tribunal claim against them. Subsequently, after learning that other candidates had been allocated shifts before induction (unlike himself), he sent an email questioning potential race discrimination.
The Withdrawn Job Offer
Following the email and ongoing difficulties obtaining a reference from Metroline, Transport UK London Bus Ltd withdrew the conditional job offer. The ET initially found that the withdrawal was partly motivated by a concern to avoid "future issues", inferring this to mean potential future discrimination claims, and upheld Mr. Aslam's claim of victimisation under section 27(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 – that is, because the company believed he might do a protected act.
Reconsideration and Appeal
However, upon application by the bus company, the ET reconsidered its decision, arguing that the claim under s.27(1)(b) had not been explicitly pleaded. The ET then dismissed the victimisation claim. Mr. Aslam appealed this reconsideration to the EAT.
EAT's Ruling
Mr Recorder Gavin Mansfield KC, presiding over the EAT, found that the ET had erred in law by being too restrictive in its interpretation of Mr. Aslam's pleadings. The EAT held that the original claim was broad enough to encompass both victimisation due to past protected acts (s.27(1)(a)) and victimisation based on a belief that the claimant may do a protected act in the future (s.27(1)(b)).
The EAT further determined that the Tribunal had improperly considered whether it was in the 'interests of justice' to reconsider the claim, giving the Claimant no opportunity to apply to amend it. The EAT emphasized that all the crucial facts relating to the s.27(1)(b) claim were already presented in the original complaint. The EAT highlighted that any amendment that the Claimant would have needed to make was “so small, and would have made no difference to the facts relied on or the scope of the evidence”.
Outcome
The EAT revoked the reconsideration decision and reinstated the initial judgment in favour of Mr. Aslam. The case has been remitted back to the Employment Tribunal to determine the appropriate remedy.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Jamshid Aslam v Transport UK London Bus Ltd (formerly known as Abellio London Ltd) [2025] EAT 113
